bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

[Nicolas Semrau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 368 bytes --]

Five years ago, Stefan Monnier asked if vt100-led.el and vt-control.el
could be obsoleted.[1] Since there was no objection at the time (and
the hardware certainly not gaining in popularity since then), I propose
to go through with declaring /lisp/vt-control.el and /lisp/vt100-led.el
obsolete.

[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-05/msg00169.html

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 527 bytes --]

bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Nicolas Semrau <nicolas.semrau@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 18:49:56 +0200
> 
> Five years ago, Stefan Monnier asked if vt100-led.el and vt-control.el
> could be obsoleted.[1] Since there was no objection at the time (and
> the hardware certainly not gaining in popularity since then), I propose
> to go through with declaring /lisp/vt-control.el and /lisp/vt100-led.el
> obsolete.

Aren't they useful with lisp/term/vtXXX.el, which we didn't yet
obsolete?

bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

[Stefan Kangas]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Nicolas Semrau <nicolas.semrau@gmail.com>
>> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 18:49:56 +0200
>> 
>> Five years ago, Stefan Monnier asked if vt100-led.el and vt-control.el
>> could be obsoleted.[1] Since there was no objection at the time (and
>> the hardware certainly not gaining in popularity since then), I propose
>> to go through with declaring /lisp/vt-control.el and /lisp/vt100-led.el
>> obsolete.
>
> Aren't they useful with lisp/term/vtXXX.el, which we didn't yet
> obsolete?

Is there any reason not to obsolete lisp/term/vtXXX.el as well?

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se>
> Cc: Nicolas Semrau <nicolas.semrau@gmail.com>,  37562@debbugs.gnu.org,
>  Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 05:19:14 +0100
> 
> > Aren't they useful with lisp/term/vtXXX.el, which we didn't yet
> > obsolete?
> 
> Is there any reason not to obsolete lisp/term/vtXXX.el as well?

I think they are still being used, albeit rarely, with emulators of
those old terminals.

bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

[Stefan Kangas]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> > > Aren't they useful with lisp/term/vtXXX.el, which we didn't yet
> > > obsolete?
> >
> > Is there any reason not to obsolete lisp/term/vtXXX.el as well?
>
> I think they are still being used, albeit rarely, with emulators of
> those old terminals.

Would it make sense to mark them as obsolete and if anyone complains
to create a new ELPA package for them instead?  We could even say in
NEWS that, in case anyone is still using this, we would appreciate it
if they reported back to emacs-devel or somesuch.  (I think I've seen
that being done once before, so there is some precedent.)

My objective in writing this is to figure out a way forward for the
original request/suggestion, but I don't feel very strongly about it.
However, if we can't find a reasonable way to do this, or if we don't
want to, I think we're better off closing this as wontfix.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se>
> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 01:02:35 +0100
> Cc: nicolas.semrau@gmail.com, 37562@debbugs.gnu.org, 
> 	Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> 
> Would it make sense to mark them as obsolete and if anyone complains
> to create a new ELPA package for them instead?  We could even say in
> NEWS that, in case anyone is still using this, we would appreciate it
> if they reported back to emacs-devel or somesuch.  (I think I've seen
> that being done once before, so there is some precedent.)
> 
> My objective in writing this is to figure out a way forward for the
> original request/suggestion, but I don't feel very strongly about it.
> However, if we can't find a reasonable way to do this, or if we don't
> want to, I think we're better off closing this as wontfix.

I prefer the latter.  This issue is so minor that we've already
invested way too much energy in it.  There's no tangible benefit in
obsoleting these tiny files.

bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

[Nicolas Semrau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1436 bytes --]

> There's no tangible benefit in obsoleting these tiny files.

So files like this will probably stay in the codebase indefinitely?

I am aware that they do not make Emacs "worse", performance-wise. I
just think linting files for those unused stone-age systems is
beneficial at least in the sense of alleviating a certain "museum
piece vibe" of Emacs.
Am Fr., 8. Nov. 2019 um 10:58 Uhr schrieb Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>:

> > From: Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se>
> > Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 01:02:35 +0100
> > Cc: nicolas.semrau@gmail.com, 37562@debbugs.gnu.org,
> >       Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> >
> > Would it make sense to mark them as obsolete and if anyone complains
> > to create a new ELPA package for them instead?  We could even say in
> > NEWS that, in case anyone is still using this, we would appreciate it
> > if they reported back to emacs-devel or somesuch.  (I think I've seen
> > that being done once before, so there is some precedent.)
> >
> > My objective in writing this is to figure out a way forward for the
> > original request/suggestion, but I don't feel very strongly about it.
> > However, if we can't find a reasonable way to do this, or if we don't
> > want to, I think we're better off closing this as wontfix.
>
> I prefer the latter.  This issue is so minor that we've already
> invested way too much energy in it.  There's no tangible benefit in
> obsoleting these tiny files.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2199 bytes --]

bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Nicolas Semrau <nicolas.semrau@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:45:10 +0100
> Cc: Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se>, 37562@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca
> 
> > There's no tangible benefit in obsoleting these tiny files.
> 
> So files like this will probably stay in the codebase indefinitely?

"Indefinitely" is a very long time.

Some time, maybe not very far away, but definitely much sooner than
"indefinitely", I will step down, and someone else will be in charge
of these decisions.  They might make a different decision about this
issue.

My personal preference is to invest energy in adding new features and
improving existing features, rather than in making such insignificant
cleanups.  YMMV.

bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Nicolas Semrau <nicolas.semrau@gmail.com> writes:

> Five years ago, Stefan Monnier asked if vt100-led.el and vt-control.el
> could be obsoleted.[1] Since there was no objection at the time (and
> the hardware certainly not gaining in popularity since then), I propose
> to go through with declaring /lisp/vt-control.el and /lisp/vt100-led.el
> obsolete.
>
> [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-05/msg00169.html

(I'm going through old bug reports that unfortunately weren't resolved
at the time.)

I've now moved them to lisp/obsolete in Emacs 29.  If it turns out that
they're useful (i.e., we get complaints from people using term/vtXXX),
then we'll reconsider, but it seems unlikely.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

[Po Lu via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors]

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> Nicolas Semrau <nicolas.semrau@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Five years ago, Stefan Monnier asked if vt100-led.el and vt-control.el
>> could be obsoleted.[1] Since there was no objection at the time (and
>> the hardware certainly not gaining in popularity since then), I propose
>> to go through with declaring /lisp/vt-control.el and /lisp/vt100-led.el
>> obsolete.
>>
>> [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-05/msg00169.html
>
> (I'm going through old bug reports that unfortunately weren't resolved
> at the time.)
>
> I've now moved them to lisp/obsolete in Emacs 29.  If it turns out that
> they're useful (i.e., we get complaints from people using term/vtXXX),
> then we'll reconsider, but it seems unlikely.

Some people use niche terminal emulators that have various graphical
effects aimed at resembling those old terminals, and that includes the
LEDs.

I don't know if they use the same control sequences as the real vt100,
but it's plausible.

bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:

> Some people use niche terminal emulators that have various graphical
> effects aimed at resembling those old terminals, and that includes the
> LEDs.
>
> I don't know if they use the same control sequences as the real vt100,
> but it's plausible.

With our obsoletion pace, any theoretical users of these files have
about a decade to make themselves known.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no