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.devel Subject: Re: emacs-29 9b775ddc057 1/2: ; * etc/EGLOT-NEWS: Fix wording of last change. Date: Sat, 06 May 2023 22:08:11 +0300 Message-ID: <83a5yhffc4.fsf@gnu.org> References: <168335548287.8529.4912240840977468283@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20230506064443.56C75C22F15@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <59835735-faa0-4096-e491-35ec92964b7a@gutov.dev> <831qjthhm8.fsf@gnu.org> <715cdac6-83f6-6907-2ff8-3b33381f3487@gutov.dev> <83zg6hg29c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ttwpfvcr.fsf@gnu.org> <83h6spfose.fsf@gnu.org> <35df1362-fd92-9424-97d0-df3479414677@gutov.dev> <83edntfm6e.fsf@gnu.org> <871qjti9kc.fsf@posteo.net> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="13322"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Philip Kaludercic Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat May 06 21:07:50 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1pvNG2-0003JD-Ll for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 06 May 2023 21:07:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pvNFV-00042E-TA; Sat, 06 May 2023 15:07:17 -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 1pvNFU-000405-Ms for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 May 2023 15:07:16 -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 1pvNFT-0007Hc-Mp; Sat, 06 May 2023 15:07:15 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=w1AiGvhTDBKkluFajPWUhM63NqIbWGKSrcFZc73LmYY=; b=AcgIAJmsw/Pz H8of4TM6A8elEgr4crfdIqUktcZst1x4yB59B2KtY9YtNsOpxOk3HOBABsF7v4kOHax1L8drAdJE8 48nCkYfhpXnAJzDIe3b2pM14uHWOibWUKxN3ninVhyOvoestfO1nWvJOojaIAFYquNn6CBxSCVJxI aVOg2QJMbT6L1wz0PP4FpPQidmmOvEQPILo3++N2fPlvtCgZYdF/Mk2UntQWWiJx5oJhfTsmOl+Fz OrVJuKQvavEzirRQ/JZ2xTtQa8A8bj3EyWk2Yiq4iOrwagW6uzusQieeFX0r0Ne6h5lSbDsu6n9/H DKhkLBtmWtJpO2QgsuDLUA==; 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 1pvNFT-0005xM-6p; Sat, 06 May 2023 15:07:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <871qjti9kc.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Sat, 06 May 2023 18:44:35 +0000) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:305928 Archived-At: > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: Dmitry Gutov , Stefan Monnier > , emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 06 May 2023 18:44:35 +0000 > > > If package-upgrade was not in Emacs 28, how did users upgrade > > installed packages in Emacs 28 and before? > > They invoked M-x list-packages, waited for the upgrade to appear, > selected them with U and then executed the update with x. This is what > used to work, and what will continue to work. But only if package-install-upgrade-built-in is non-nil, right? > > I don't see a zero-sum game here. We could focus on both. But I > > don't use package.el and never will, so if those who use it and > > maintain it think otherwise, I won't insist. Although I find this > > stance very strange indeed, to say the least. > > (This explains some of the confusion, I was under the assumption that > some of your questions were from a position of Socratic ignorance, You should know me better.