From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Mendler Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#48404: Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 09:50:45 +0200 Message-ID: <52744ef2-304f-b037-2fae-2f97d6732b38@daniel-mendler.de> References: <875yzms6im.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="39514"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: 48404@debbugs.gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri May 14 09:51:11 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lhSbG-000A9Y-Re for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 14 May 2021 09:51:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34968 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lhSbF-0006T9-5w for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 14 May 2021 03:51:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53602) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lhSb7-0006Sy-S6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 14 May 2021 03:51:01 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:33391) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lhSb7-0003Tx-Kd for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 14 May 2021 03:51:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lhSb7-0001fC-J8 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 14 May 2021 03:51:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <875yzms6im.fsf@gnu.org> Resent-From: Daniel Mendler Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 07:51:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48404 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 48404-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48404.16209786566382 (code B ref 48404); Fri, 14 May 2021 07:51:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 48404) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 May 2021 07:50:56 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44937 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lhSb1-0001es-TA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 May 2021 03:50:56 -0400 Original-Received: from server.qxqx.de ([178.63.65.180]:60883 helo=mail.qxqx.de) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lhSay-0001eb-J8 for 48404@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 May 2021 03:50:54 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qxqx.de; s=mail1392553390; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=FqimoSWBudEVkpt4/R/k63YyDWK0W9b3tfds2ufzfzI=; b=e3kEOAvnfr+ZoYwKxna7XwK5+s 2wW209moWfIy91CLpuZw83iuIp5r//2J1c9Z0A2VBOn2ojKr0c9o26bIEiWojTwKvn8M9d7xAzspo BZprTasMgqSyNplteLtEhnFpVlf2k93xc0j3+v9yEZvuwmgysmBQhF9yxNC2fy1CDLts=; Content-Language: en-US X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:206496 Archived-At: If the check does not work reliably for third-party packages, it should probably better reverted altogether. Why slap an ignore-errors around the broken code now? According to the commit message, which introduced this bug, there has been some alternative solution, which clearly sounds better: Either omit obsolete commands altogether or annotate them as obsolete. Omitting is probably too problematic since people may rely on running obsolete commands. What about making the behavior around obsolete commands a customizable option? 1. omit obsolete commands, 2. annotate obsolete commands, 3. do nothing.