Re: completion functions reorganisation and cleanup

[dana <dana@dana.is>]

On 7 Oct 2019, at 04:13, Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> How about the following patch to add in an extra directory for
> completions that will NOT be installed by default?

For whatever it's worth, it sounds OK to me. I think all of the potential
criteria you listed (different/unclear licence, low quality, obscure,
unmaintained) make sense. If anybody really wants any of those functions, they
can sort through it for what they need, so the only concern i would have is
maintenance; it wouldn't be great if it just became a 'junk drawer' of random
unvetted nonsense. (Though, as you hinted, in some cases it's already like
that...)

'Contrib' is a slightly ambiguous name to give that entire category of
things, but i can't think of anything better off the top of my head.

On 7 Oct 2019, at 04:13, Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> We might also consider pulling in the whole zsh-completions project,
> perhaps updating periodically via git-subtree rather than with a view to
> replacing it.

One potential issue i can think of with this is that there are some duplicates
(or rather divergent implementations) between zsh-completions and the main
repo, which could lead to some confusing configurations on systems that have
both installed.

On 7 Oct 2019, at 04:13, Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Should we just remove these? Or perhaps announce for 5.8 that they will
> go in 5.9? Any individual objections, or additions.

The only one of those that i've ever even heard of is elm. I think either of
those plans is probably fine; it's not like we couldn't re-add in a point
release if someone complained.

dana