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: Heads-up: Emacs 26.1 RC1 Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:16:08 +0200 Message-ID: <83d0zzmd3b.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83605snjjt.fsf@gnu.org> <87605raoo9.fsf@killashandra.ballybran.fr> <83zi33n9ud.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3inalb5.fsf@killashandra.ballybran.fr> <83sh8vn7ss.fsf@gnu.org> <87r2of5las.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1521530102 32176 195.159.176.226 (20 Mar 2018 07:15:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 07:15:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: johnw@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, pierre.techoueyres@free.fr To: Eric Abrahamsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 20 08:14:58 2018 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 1eyBU1-0008Ea-98 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:14:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46588 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eyBW4-00076J-A8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 03:17:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45464) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eyBV8-00073k-3R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 03:16:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eyBV7-000568-4s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 03:16:06 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:46149) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eyBV0-00050U-Ak; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 03:15:58 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3877 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1eyBUz-0004Pg-LG; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 03:15:58 -0400 In-reply-to: <87r2of5las.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> (message from Eric Abrahamsen on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:10:51 +0800) 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:223851 Archived-At: > From: Eric Abrahamsen > Cc: pierre.techoueyres@free.fr (Pierre Téchoueyres), > johnw@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:10:51 +0800 > > >> Yes sorry I will do it next time. You have found the right message : > >> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=29220#135 > > > > I'm okay with that if Eric agrees. > > Yes! My apologies again for the slowness. I really wanted to get a grasp > on CEDET and how it uses eieio-persist, to avoid causing more problems, > but realistically I'm not going to get there anytime soon. Also, the > fact that Pierre's tests fail exactly the same way with Emacs 25 and > Emacs 26+fix indicate that CEDET has other issues that need resolving > first. > > What I would like to do is merge the fix/eieio-persistent branch. That > has new tests from Pierre (Pierre, have you signed FSF papers?), more > tests from me, and better error reporting for the restore process. The > commits that actually "do something" are bf4f34ac7 and 1ea9947ca3189. > > Is that okay? Ouch! Why are you waiting so long with such a large change? The changes in error/warning messages and in the test suite are okay to go, but I'm worried by the 2 changes that add a condition (where you went from (when ...) to (cond ...)). Is this really necessary, and what problems do they solve? > If so, what's the proper merge strategy to use? It's up to you. You can either merge or rebase, we don't care (and I don't want to get into a controversial discussion of which one is better).