From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2) [Documentation fix still remaining] Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 10:48:31 -0700 Message-ID: <75100b15-d49f-5a1a-d73b-24db77c891bf@dancol.org> References: <83inv9hkjd.fsf@gnu.org> <83h9ashfgx.fsf@gnu.org> <831t1wharr.fsf@gnu.org> <20160810161821.GB3413@acm.fritz.box> <83wpjofttf.fsf@gnu.org> <20160810185735.GD3413@acm.fritz.box> <20160811112951.GA2154@acm.fritz.box> <7e1478b6-cf00-fcbf-8c24-43bdaa57e2b6@dancol.org> <415d1cca-f32c-624e-a4be-9aadcf8a0f17@dancol.org> <83inujbpek.fsf@gnu.org> <83eg57bl8f.fsf@gnu.org> <5ee6ff4a-2d58-82f1-8e83-479c62f0b729@dancol.org> <837fazbjb4.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1472492941 13538 195.159.176.226 (29 Aug 2016 17:49:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:49:01 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 29 19:48:57 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1beQg2-0002u5-IB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:48:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45041 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beQg0-0005ss-5y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:48:52 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51786) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beQfr-0005sl-P3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:48:44 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beQfm-0007kc-QL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:48:42 -0400 Original-Received: from dancol.org ([96.126.100.184]:36444) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beQfm-0007kM-GO; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:48:38 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:Cc:References:To:Subject; bh=y6TxXkh5zyheVRtmZXe/S5gbACovCs6HIH6l1jqNSHs=; b=OCnkgdxGtYGxdc8o9kFI1IZEPDHUq5+fTenkm/fjDOGurVHOL61tGj4TIPAsJ6njnBxYiqZah8gKwEBhuVHhzCTHXhB/zV9n65oEaXDqGsDx3nGOVZDKl3CvG8MlUG2kNO3T3JuETutUDG4is3DqNXKyEgjvpK6JPmlaBqLcQblpgkMgfc/THPV58yAVoTkrU2Jgo7auSNDCLhUgOQRpgTNWnHlZJ3yrtTTj2bXqRSRVEfr537qY+f6E/bkyBgGxpLKPJiMzzg+dkuQyomc5gLUAvD2DgKfjA6EfIzrZ4ZDqlGsLX4eh1O7Vi/xwOVh8XKFEyazpLTErSew0WN5swA==; Original-Received: from c-73-97-199-232.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([73.97.199.232] helo=[192.168.1.173]) by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1beQfj-00068m-9V; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 10:48:35 -0700 In-Reply-To: <837fazbjb4.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 96.126.100.184 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:206894 Archived-At: On 08/29/2016 10:01 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Daniel Colascione >> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 09:26:38 -0700 >> Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >>> We are talking about code that runs virtually >>> unchanged for many years. Making significant changes in it needs a >>> good reason. When such good reasons emerge, we can discuss whether >>> they justify the risks. For now, the reasons presented do not. >> >> What criteria are you using to determine whether a bug is sufficiently >> serious to fix? What would convince you that a change in this behavior >> is warranted? > > I described up-thread what would constitute a good enough reason for > me to consider such changes for admission. Here's the list again: > > . a bug that affects (i.e. breaks) the core code itself (e.g., see > bug#5131 fixed in 00b6647 as a recent example related to insdel.c) > . a problem that affects several Lisp packages for which there's no > reasonably practical workaround/fix as part of the package itself > . refactoring done as part of introducing a significant new feature We have two separate bugs here. In order of severity: 1) Something b-c-f is not called _at_ _all_ before certain changes 2) Sometimes b-c-f is called once, then a-c-f is called multiple times, because internally, changes are split into several chunks, each of which gets its own a-c-f call I can understand #2 being wontfix, but can you reconsider fixing #1? #1 breaks the entire b-c-f model --- "hey, I'm about to modify the buffer, so throw away caches" ---- and can lead to anything with a cache flush in b-c-f (like syntax-ppss) not properly discarding out-of-date buffer information. > > Please note that not every change/bugfix is required to pass such > scrutiny, only changes in code that is very central to Emacs > operation. I think manipulation of buffer text, display engine, basic > file I/O, and encoding/decoding stuff are such areas. Changes that > affect some aspects of more local, specialized behavior are normally > less risky. IOW, there's still a judgment call needed in each case, > so that the above is applicable to as few changes as possible. > >