Re: master 82ccc3a: ; Mention the previous change in NEWS

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 17:46:16 +0300
> 
> >>>     *** Commands that use 'grep-find' now follow symlinks by default.
> >>
> >> Not exactly: going by the option's description in the manual, it follows
> >> symlinks for all arguments passed from the command line
> > 
> > That's easily fixed, and isn't the main point of my message.
> 
> Just helping get the details right.

Sure; thanks.

> >> rgrep, which also has some ignores to handle, uses "." as the DIR
> >> argument, so it should see no change.
> > 
> > That's just the default, right?
> 
> No, that's what it does: it passes for directory to search in through 
> the value of default-directory. The argument to 'find' is always ".".

Not sure I follow: the user could customize grep-find-template to put
a specific directory instead of <D>, right?

> >> xref-matches-in-directory has no known callers anymore, but any
> >> third-party code should see the IGNORES honored better with those old
> >> versions of 'find'.
> > 
> > So we could say that any command which uses xref-matches-in-directory
> > is affected.
> 
> Is that better than saying that the variable changed? Possibly affecting 
> any code that uses it is an obvious implication.

How about saying both?

> We can say that about xref-matches-in-directory, noting that the change 
> is likely to only be noticeable with old versions of 'find'.

That'd be good, yes.

> Which apparently includes macOS systems, but I'm not sure which
> ones, and whether using "Homebrew" or not matters for this case.

Maybe also some *BSD?  We could mention macOS, or we could say
something like "non-GNU Find".

> Also, we'll probably mark xref-matches-in-directory as obsolete sooner 
> or later (xref-matches-in-files is generally a better, more composable 
> choice), so I'm not sure how much attention we should bring to it.

We aren't there yet, though.

> > Once again, if nothing's changed, why did you decide to add this
> > entry?  I guess you thought it had some importance.  I just think we
> > should better explain what have really changed, and doing that in the
> > terms of a not-so-simple value of an option doesn't make that clear.
> 
> I figured you wanted to enumerate the exact commands that were affected. 

I thought that was possible.  If not, let's say what we can.