stgit.el update

[nicolas-graves]

Hi StGit!

I was trying to package stgit.el for Guix, and I noticed tere is quite some cleaning to do on stgit.el, I have the following warnings on compilation:
log.txt

I also wondered about the status of the package, I've seen that magit-stgit has been updated and I'm wondering if the statement

If you are looking for full fledged StGit support in Emacs, then have a look at `stgit.el' which is distributed with StGit.

as found on MELPA stable still holds true, or if magit-stgit is the one recommended now (maybe we should make a release for MELPA stable ?).

[jpgrayson]

Hi @nicolas-graves. Thanks for working on packaging StGit for Guix.

The state of StGit's various emacs packages is not great.

You're right that magit-stgit has had some recent-ish maintenance and may be in better shape than stgit.el. But I can't personally vouch for whether magit-stgit is in a release-worthy state. Perhaps @tohojo could comment?

[tohojo]

Well, I'm using it for my daily(ish) work, so while the bindings are not complete, I'd say it's definitely a usable subset.

I've never used stgit,el, so can't really say anything about how that compares to magit-stgit, though :)

[jpgrayson]

Thanks for that perspective, @tohojo--that's helpful. So perhaps it would make sense to tag the latest magit-stgit as @nicolas-graves suggests?

Do we think that would be a 2.2.0 or 3.0.0 tag?

I'm not super familiar with how MELPA works, but it appears from looking at the melpa recipe for StGit that if we were to push a new magit-stgit tag, MELPA would just use that tag automatically.

[tohojo]

Yeah, I agree that tagging a new version makes sense. No strong opinion about which version number to go with. I suppose the switch to transient could be occasion enough to go for the big 3.0? :)

No idea how melpa works, but from just looking at that recipe I guess you're right?

[jpgrayson]

I'll create a new 3.0.0 tag for magit-stgit.