GNU bug report logs - #16735
Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa packages

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 16735 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 16735 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #3 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa packages
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:05:38 -0500

Package: emacs
Severity: minor

Some elpa.gnu.org packages seem not to understand what the Keywords:
header is for. Eg coffee-mode uses "coffeescript", "major", and "mode".
None of these are standard, none of these are shared with a single other
package. sml-mode uses just "sml".

This header should contain relevant entry(ies) from finder-known-keywords.

Message #6 received at 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ted Zlatanov <tzz <at> lifelogs.com>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa
 packages
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:08:50 -0500

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:05:38 -0500 Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org> wrote: 

GM> Package: emacs
GM> Severity: minor

GM> Some elpa.gnu.org packages seem not to understand what the Keywords:
GM> header is for. Eg coffee-mode uses "coffeescript", "major", and "mode".
GM> None of these are standard, none of these are shared with a single other
GM> package. sml-mode uses just "sml".

GM> This header should contain relevant entry(ies) from finder-known-keywords.

Maybe we need to support a new "Tags:" header and to suggest to the
authors to migrate to it (and in the process set correct Keywords).

Ted

Message #9 received at 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa
 packages
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:00:50 -0500

> Maybe we need to support a new "Tags:" header and to suggest to the
> authors to migrate to it (and in the process set correct Keywords).

I don't understand why a new header would help.


        Stefan

Message #12 received at 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ted Zlatanov <tzz <at> lifelogs.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>, 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa
 packages
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:01:41 -0500

On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:00:50 -0500 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: 

>> Maybe we need to support a new "Tags:" header and to suggest to the
>> authors to migrate to it (and in the process set correct Keywords).

SM> I don't understand why a new header would help.

Keywords is supposed to match the finder keywords.  Authors want a way
to tag their packages with arbitrary keywords = tags.

Ted

Message #15 received at 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa
 packages
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:05:22 -0500

> Keywords is supposed to match the finder keywords.

No, they don't have to.  But it's a good idea if they do.  And same
would hold for "Tag".


        Stefan

Message #18 received at 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa
 packages
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:08:32 -0500

Ted Zlatanov wrote:

> Keywords is supposed to match the finder keywords.

Is it? Exclusively?
I used to think that, but I don't even know any more...
So many people use it for random "here's a list of any word I could
think of that is even vaguely related to this file".

> Authors want a way to tag their packages with arbitrary keywords =
> tags.

Calendar uses "Human-Keywords" for that, but no-one else does AFAICS.

IMO it is a shame "Keywords" was not called "Finder-Keywords" from the
start, if that is really what it was supposed to be.


Anyway, all I was hoping to get from this bug report is that Someone
would add the relevant finder keywords (languages, etc) to elpa.gnu.org
packages that lack them.

Message #21 received at 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa
 packages
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:16:11 -0500

PS perhaps the describe-package stuff that adds the keywords buttons
should ignore unknown keywords?

Message #24 received at 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ted Zlatanov <tzz <at> lifelogs.com>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa
 packages
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:21:16 -0500

On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:08:32 -0500 Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org> wrote: 

GM> Ted Zlatanov wrote:
>> Keywords is supposed to match the finder keywords.

GM> Is it? Exclusively?
GM> I used to think that, but I don't even know any more...
GM> So many people use it for random "here's a list of any word I could
GM> think of that is even vaguely related to this file".

I know, so I'm saying let's give them a new "Tags" header for that
purpose and gently encourage them to start using it.

>> Authors want a way to tag their packages with arbitrary keywords =
>> tags.

GM> Calendar uses "Human-Keywords" for that, but no-one else does AFAICS.

GM> IMO it is a shame "Keywords" was not called "Finder-Keywords" from the
GM> start, if that is really what it was supposed to be.

Yes, I agree.

GM> Anyway, all I was hoping to get from this bug report is that Someone
GM> would add the relevant finder keywords (languages, etc) to elpa.gnu.org
GM> packages that lack them.

I can do it, but in the process would like to start using Tags.  Then we
have something to offer the authors so their intended tags (which
presumably are valuable) are not lost.

On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:05:22 -0500 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: 

>> Keywords is supposed to match the finder keywords.

SM> No, they don't have to.  But it's a good idea if they do.

Right.

SM> And same would hold for "Tag".

Why should it?  It would be a new header, intended for arbitrary
strings, with no baggage.  IOW you'd see

Keywords: language
Tags: mustache,handlebars

Does that make sense?
Ted

Message #27 received at 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa
 packages
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:12:26 -0500

> Why should it?

Because the finder keywords are not magical.  They're just a starting
point for very general classification.  But it makes a lot of sense to
put an "ocaml" keyword on ocaml-mode, tuareg-mode and merlin since all
3 provide functionality for ocaml.  Similarly it makes a lot of sense to
use a "completion" keyword for company, icomplete, auto-complete,
completion-ui, semantic, etc...

What I mean is that there's no reason to separate the two.  What the UI
could do, OTOH is to only "buttonize" those keywords that appear in more
than one package.


        Stefan "who doesn't like the finder keywords very much anyway.
                I mean, «convenience»?  «tools»?"

Message #30 received at 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa
 packages
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:37:50 -0500

Stefan Monnier wrote:

>> Why should it?
[...]

Since Ted uses "Mail-Copies-To: Never", and Gnus seems to then just pick
someone from the Cc: list (namely me) to use as the To: header, and
since you don't attribute your citations, I keep thinking you are
quoting me, but you aren't. Could you attribute your quotes?

Message #33 received at 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa
 packages
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:47:57 -0800 (PST)

> > Why should it?
> 
> Because the finder keywords are not magical.  They're just a
> starting point for very general classification.  But it makes a lot
> of sense to put an "ocaml" keyword on ocaml-mode, tuareg-mode and
> merlin since all 3 provide functionality for ocaml.  Similarly it
> makes a lot of sense to use a "completion" keyword for company,
> icomplete, auto-complete, completion-ui, semantic, etc...
> 
> What I mean is that there's no reason to separate the two.  What the
> UI could do, OTOH is to only "buttonize" those keywords that appear
> in more than one package.

+1 to all of that.

Keywords in the header are *not* Finder keywords, anyway.  Finder
is one thing that makes use of them.

And even for that, I want Finder to be able to handle any keywords.

If someone wants/needs a more restrictive search that finds only
somebody's set of "official" keywords (which could be useful),
then that feature should be additional.

And it would be a trivial feature to add to Finder or whatever
(e.g. package.el): let users or code define known sets of
keywords to (optionally) recognize.

Keywords in the header have no particular meanings.  They mean
what you want them to mean or what some particular code that
uses them makes them mean (do).

Message #36 received at 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ted Zlatanov <tzz <at> lifelogs.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>,
 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa
 packages
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:32:37 -0500

On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:12:26 -0500 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: 

>> Why should it?
SM> Because the finder keywords are not magical.  They're just a starting
SM> point for very general classification.  But it makes a lot of sense to
SM> put an "ocaml" keyword on ocaml-mode, tuareg-mode and merlin since all
SM> 3 provide functionality for ocaml.  Similarly it makes a lot of sense to
SM> use a "completion" keyword for company, icomplete, auto-complete,
SM> completion-ui, semantic, etc...

SM> What I mean is that there's no reason to separate the two.  What the UI
SM> could do, OTOH is to only "buttonize" those keywords that appear in more
SM> than one package.

OK, but the original report here was to prune these keywords.  So do I
fix the UI (since I created the buttons) as you suggest or do I prune
the keywords as Glenn suggested?

SM>         Stefan "who doesn't like the finder keywords very much anyway.
SM>                 I mean, «convenience»?  «tools»?"

Yes, I agree, and extra points for the fancy quotations :)

Ted

Message #39 received at 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Ted Zlatanov <tzz <at> lifelogs.com>
Cc: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>, 16735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa
 packages
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:50:10 -0500

> OK, but the original report here was to prune these keywords.

The reports points out two problems:
- the existing keywords include useless/incorrect elements.
- the fail to include some relevant finder-keywords.
So we should add appropriate finder-keywords, remove useless keywords,
and fix incorrect ones.

> Yes, I agree, and extra points for the fancy quotations :)

"<Multi_key> < <"  and "<Multi_key> > >"


        Stefan

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.