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: master 82ccc3a: ; Mention the previous change in NEWS Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2021 18:02:08 +0300 Message-ID: <83tum8e6xb.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83lf7lfwc8.fsf@gnu.org> <835yyoft5k.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="29239"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 08 17:03:42 2021 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 1lqdGX-0007Of-Bp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 17:03:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36692 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqdGW-0006TR-D9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 11:03:40 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43902) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqdFL-0004WS-E5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 11:02:28 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:35912) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqdFL-0007d6-42; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 11:02:27 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:4615 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 1lqdFK-00046H-Ox; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 11:02:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Dmitry Gutov on Tue, 8 Jun 2021 17:46:16 +0300) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:270564 Archived-At: > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > 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 , 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.