From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 19:50:10 +0300 Message-ID: <83wn277r5p.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> <252e77fb-9657-a5be-2e86-234f7b05d162@gutov.dev> <83edog84cm.fsf@gnu.org> <8e73ca15-00a3-2082-2dd4-94585a3aa64b@gutov.dev> <83zg737szu.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="31228"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Jo=C3=A3o_?= =?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=A1vora?= Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 19 18:51:15 2023 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 1ppB1W-0007rK-Mk for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 18:51:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppB1M-0000M7-Hf; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:51:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppB1L-0000K9-0d for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:51:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppB1K-0003dz-NF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:51:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppB1J-0001kG-IX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:51:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 16:51:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 62720 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 62720-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B62720.16819230096482 (code B ref 62720); Wed, 19 Apr 2023 16:51:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2023 16:50:09 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35688 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppB0S-0001gU-Rj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:50:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39266) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppB0Q-0001fr-7T for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:50:07 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppB0K-0002v7-8X; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:50:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=aGJ51/ObvbUjOyNvfT8atcEH3a5Kiv+/Dy7zg7sgZm0=; b=gBTYsveDco45ODhH5tdK 4on6tfFg/Mqt44WC02KGKjKLSg37vfTBzCWcaaCsI3dVKsd7guQe1HUiFogKjYtSQTqqWuOwJdqJf ysD1befvdAKkQiBB7aJ0YnbjIUMrecpYz1plOcwCsMXh3kB79WE1s+6xRFE3yO2gbp6TE1uQNrANY uATFjkwyLb7RhUVwn9GFjhCVYhNp/AXr2BZBg3ocvCDcCtL8zY+7Z6gWLZ/d5STv5v3qWi3BM2gks 6YHxGY7pNgXFuBKrWqdILig8ygG9dKNhDlsUNj6wEGahhBJN0BbL1E68e2jzSnB9XFifzi4RxPdCz W22jauWcTh0gDQ==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppB0J-0006NW-Jh; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:49:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from =?UTF-8?Q?Jo=C3=A3o_?= =?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=A1vora?= on Wed, 19 Apr 2023 17:23:19 +0100) 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:260282 Archived-At: > From: João Távora > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 17:23:19 +0100 > Cc: Dmitry Gutov , rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 5:10 PM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > But note that this is not what João is saying. He says 1.14 will not > > be in Emacs 29.1, period. No matter how long I will drag the pretest. > > He certainly doesn't want to invest the effort of making Eglot 1.14 > > less dependent on latest changes in other packages, so as to make sure > > we could drop Eglot 1.14 into Emacs 29 without risking any problems > > elsewhere. And that more or less seals the issue, effectively setting > > your N to infinity. > > This is extremely odd for me. Weren't you the one very, very sternly > asking for almost _no_ changes to go into Elisp code of the Emacs 29 > now that it is in pretest. And now you're liberally and casually > suggesting way-over-last minute changes and work to go into that same > version? I'm talking only about Eglot, not in general. I believe I've stressed that point already. So what I said or did or asked to do regarding other packages or other places in Emacs is not necessarily relevant for this discussion. The decisions about these issues are always on a case by case basis, so you cannot compare different cases and expect them to yield the same decisions. > This just doesn't make any sense to me. Can't you understand that other > maintainers also value stability for their packages? Of course I can. But once again: if Eglot 1.14 is not stable enough, then why do we recommend users of Emacs 29 to update their bundled Eglot to v1.14? This is inconsistent: if 1.14 is not stable enough to be in Emacs 29, we should only recommend it for users of Emacs 30. I already explained this inconsistency more than once. Why do you keep bringing it up time and again? You might disagree, but why do you insist that I accept what I perceive as inconsistent logic? Just let it go and accept that we disagree about this. > It's certainly NOT about "not wanting to invest the effort". That effort > would amount to forking Eglot in its feature set so that effort would be > a disservice to everybody. No, it doesn't require any forks. It requires more cautious introduction of new features into Eglot on master. And yes, it's extra effort. But IMNSHO, users will benefit, so in my book it's worth it.