From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2) [Documentation fix still remaining] Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 20:01:51 +0300 Message-ID: <837fazbjb4.fsf@gnu.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> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1472490150 5895 195.159.176.226 (29 Aug 2016 17:02:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:02:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 29 19:02:25 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 1bePx0-0000s3-Al for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:02:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44899 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bePwy-00057u-0K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:02:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38764) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bePwr-00057e-Vu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:02:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bePwo-0006KQ-3I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:02:13 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:38069) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bePwn-0006KC-UW; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:02:10 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1323 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bePwi-0004wT-Qx; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:02:07 -0400 In-reply-to: <5ee6ff4a-2d58-82f1-8e83-479c62f0b729@dancol.org> (message from Daniel Colascione on Mon, 29 Aug 2016 09:26:38 -0700) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:206889 Archived-At: > 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 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.