On Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 19:51 Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com>
> > Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 19:31:09 +0100
> > Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org,
>
> >       larsi@gnus.org
> >
> > > See above.  Given the problems I mentioned, I'm allowed to doubt that
> > > you yourself understand the changes well enough to vouch for them.
> > > And even if you did vouch, my gray hair won't believe you.  So I
> > > prefer to go for much safer, if slightly less clean, changes.  I hope
> > > one of the two alternatives I suggested will be acceptable.
> >
> > If this change can't go into emacs-29, I think it's better to add
> > an M-x eglot-update to eglot.el.
>
> That's the worst of all worlds.
>

Why? It's the safest option. Absolutely no package.el regression possible,
and doesn't solve a problem where you don't think I've exists.

>
> What is the problem with the two possible solutions I suggested?
>

They are incongruent and not very user friendly IMO.

João

>