Re: Cutoff date for adding ruby-ts-mode?

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2022 17:32:47 +0200
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, pedz@easesoftware.com,
>  Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA>
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
> 
> Speaking of the method, how do you feel about renaming a file?
> 
> If ruby-ts-mode is going to live in the same file as ruby-mode, perhaps 
> the more neutral file name ruby.el would be proper? This would be in 
> line with the scheme used by js.el and python.el.

I'd like to avoid any more decisions related to *-ts-mode's, let alone
binding ones.  I'd like to leave that for the future, when we
(hopefully) will have a clearer picture of how best to mix
tree-sitter-supported modes with the traditional ones.

So renaming now doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

> This is not an idle lets-decide-it-later question because I want to have 
> some later releases of these modes in GNU ELPA, and we'll want to have 
> the built-in packages properly shadowed when someone installs a new 
> version. (Perhaps Stefan has an advice here, so Cc'd).
> 
> I see several (require 'ruby-mode)-s in third-party packages. There are 
> not too many of them, I could just go around and ask everyone to replace 
> that with (or (require 'ruby nil t) (require 'ruby-mode)). Or we could 
> have a compatibility stub in Emacs 29 where ruby-mode.el just calls 
> "(require 'ruby) (provide 'ruby-mode)".
> 
> We don't often rename files also because of 'git log' problems, but we 
> have a decent (and simple enough) plan to improve that in bug#55871.
> 
> Alternatively, we break from the common scheme and put the modes in 
> separate files, one depending on the other. Then they'll have to be 
> separate GNU ELPA packages (I think), and we'll need to synchronously 
> bump version and required-version in them every time when making 
> interrelated changes in the future.

I'd prefer this alternative for now (modulo the separate ELPA packages
part, which I leave for you to decide: they could also be a single
package from my POV).  If nothing else, having separate files is
similar to what at least some other *-ts-mode's do.  When we revisit
these issues in the future, we'll be able to make the decisions about
all of them.

Thanks.