From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jo=C3=A3o_?= =?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=A1vora?= 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 14:04:10 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <875y9yfxrr.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="14844"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, Dmitry Gutov , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 19 15:05:23 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 1pp7Ux-0003ef-GR for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 15:05:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pp7Ue-0001nz-4T; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:05:04 -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 1pp7Uc-0001ms-MQ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:05:02 -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 1pp7Uc-0000T0-CA for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:05:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pp7Uc-0006fA-6n for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:05:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jo=C3=A3o_?= =?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=A1vora?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:05:02 +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=B62720.168190947025566 (code B ref 62720); Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:05:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2023 13:04:30 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33064 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pp7U6-0006eI-0I for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:04:30 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-oo1-f45.google.com ([209.85.161.45]:36354) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pp7U3-0006e5-8E for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:04:28 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-oo1-f45.google.com with SMTP id h30-20020a4ae8de000000b005463ee651b8so1609760ooe.3 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 06:04:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681909461; x=1684501461; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=/0+26E73NWa+r7ZTU54y880lECsUftlidtaqVTRyv9E=; b=UV5o8OAJsqUKpaLC9q69rlBkF9mBGFYK/+S0mXCR3HiFbTy0GC3FsCxdBRlbKtZqB4 PZQoEyxSlXEvl2bYHuNVucwK/p3T0pfa2kmTjfhaTVG+mUDBO1Y5FiDnbOvZf+KP54Hp nQ6CKGWk5nZHlecG3EZqoL3b7dDDFjqLy9whfFeSBo9vqWQMT1tQ1X+4D98U1GEaZ+cd 6RAgcq8lBtVX/J63t30Lo4/6GQGyX3/3bj1FyCTabMDoP1/0C/M9hupJ1JUv/ZiYZ+GK 7xHqoqYfWbFk2NynlVQiMmGVOmpb8jLxucjO+aUdZyP+JayzyQ/bWjvUfsC5MjovAujF U3gg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681909461; x=1684501461; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=/0+26E73NWa+r7ZTU54y880lECsUftlidtaqVTRyv9E=; b=EET3/C3+Mq/+FGt/BsUvOgwWngFXN375/0/6FdNeD8cW/EAydWONgQBQ4+Y61yBzXe KVb5AmlRENmdbqBkaacdMI53pB28s8wpzrcm1UFKGRRGrvzyHRQSAfVsKQXaE10O0wcT sQOZgFP1jsO1xi3XPFkVvPGmsIXtwYAlPFNCGUv6cXqXMDOzV/VxtpDZlOv2Ort4rrLg hLuMu0MgLMGBngd9cA+PcdXIy1uJgnG/FRhdd3zI7L7wRN1Ku5hWtSxLAtx8X1jA9ssb BDvoyNBafwbBBqM26JWM5j7bHOxtYQmaNRgB5c9qh+KQr3Y1EonIW5qTcyqoOmNoD4zT ek8A== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9eqcymG7mryeZCTKggA6xEFUsUwJdxWXJa8x1tW9bdLWc05qEAw 7Nw4v9mIUTEGXOMDhEfPO+itIcgWMYOUbi7vyMM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350asaCzZIdUVbu1Tbr9q0lw08IoXrDGVTrKRru2dSnw73reLzm4hUQgWjFQMSCH9UA8nEv+0o98afEIRFF/cEN8= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:9809:0:b0:537:f9d4:a44c with SMTP id y9-20020a4a9809000000b00537f9d4a44cmr8684727ooi.5.1681909461657; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 06:04:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83edog84cm.fsf@gnu.org> 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:260269 Archived-At: On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 1:05=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 00:20:21 +0300 > > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > From: Dmitry Gutov > > > > On 19/04/2023 00:15, Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora wrote: > > >> Aha, so the :echo thingy made it possible. Gotcha. > > > Right, which is also the reason it makes even_less_ sense to bring E= glot > > > 1.15 into Emacs 29_without_ ElDoc (I hope that plan is now completel= y off > > > the table). > > > > Eh, sure. > > It isn't my call in this case, but FWIW: I still have no idea why > wouldn't we want Eglot 1.14 or 1.15 to be in Emacs 29.1. I didn't > hear any serious argument against doing that; every reason that was > raised was almost immediately explained away as not being a hard > limitation. > > And mind you: Emacs 29.1 will not be released tomorrow or the day > after. We still have at least several weeks till then, with at least > one more pretest. So the decision whether to import a newer Eglot > into the release branch doesn't have to be today. However, the > argument against updating Eglot on the release branch, such as they > were, are of some vaguely "fundamental" nature, so I'm not sure a few > more weeks of time will change the decision. No one said something > like "if Emacs 29.1 were to be released in NN weeks or more, it would > be okay to update Eglot on the release branch." But then I already > admitted to not understanding those reasons, so maybe I'm missing > something here. > > So there you are. Eli, do you want Eglot 1.14 (or 1.15, or 1.16 or whatever version is the latest Eglot release "several weeks" from now) to be in Emacs 29? >From your writings, I'm assuming you do. Let's call that version Eglot 1.1x with x > 14. If we did that, we would have two options: 1. Bundle Eglot 1.1x with Emacs 29 and all its up-to-date dependencies, so that, right at the moment of the Emacs 29 release, Eglot would function exactly the same on Emacs 28 + package-install. 2. Bundle a "Frankenglot" with Emacs 29 that has all the lisp/progmodes/eglot.el code of the future Eglot version, advertises itself as Eglot 1.1x, probably doesn't break, but does _not_ provide the same experience as Emacs 28 + package-install Both options are bad, IMO, but 2 is worse. The first reason that both options are bad is that you're discarding whatever value the pretest phase brings to the stability of Eglot's code. Eglot, being a part of Emacs the Emacs code base, benefits from the same testing all its code does. You're discarding that value, and I think it's bad, because the pretest is supposedly there for a good reason. A bug = in Eglot 1.1x will just escape us and there's no time to fix it. The second reason only applies to option 2. It would completely confuse users. A user running Emacs 28 would see a much better 1.1x than the 1.1x bundled in Emacs 29. Her configuration for Eglot 1.1x could simply break in 1.1x. Eglot 1.1x was never designed to be run in such a hampered environment. They are "fundamental" reasons indeed. Are they now less vague and more concrete? Jo=C3=A3o