Re: emacs-29 9b775ddc057 1/2: ; * etc/EGLOT-NEWS: Fix wording of last change.

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Sat, 6 May 2023 23:31:31 +0300
> Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry@gutov.dev>
> 
> On 06/05/2023 22:38, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> package-menu-mark-upgrades ('U') is not affected by
> >> package-install-upgrade-built-in. It won't.
> > 
> > Shouldn't it?
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.

I think it better did, because using "U" would upgrade Eglot and
use-package in Emacs 28 and before.  So we should give users who want
that the capability of keeping that workflow in Emacs 29, if only as
opt-in behavior.

Also, "/ u" should ideally show built-in packages as well, when
package-install-upgrade-built-in is non-nil.

Philip, can these two changes be implemented safely for Emacs 29?

> A user that customized that option to have (package-install 'eglot) 
> ensure that a version from ELPA is installed might not want or expect 
> for it to affect package-menu-mark-upgrades and/or package-upgrade-all. 

That is true, but denying them the possibility of upgrading would be
worse, I think.  And since this is opt-in behavior, the user is less
likely to be tripped by that without realizing it.

> Or anticipate the full consequences anyway.

Documentation should solve this aspect.

> >>> If package-upgrade was not in Emacs 28, how did users upgrade
> >>> installed packages in Emacs 28 and before?
> >>
> >> Using package-menu-mark-upgrades ('U').
> > 
> > So we should allow that, at least as an optional behavior in Emacs 29,
> > right?
> 
> I don't believe in "optionality" here.
> 
> If the user has to hunt for the option to toggle, they might as well 
> find the "one little trick" that does the thing they want.
> 
> Most people will only have to do that once (per config), if at all: 
> after Eglot is upgraded this way, it's smooth sailing from then on.

I think allowing such an optional behavior and documenting it in NEWS
and in the manual should go a long way towards eliminating at least
some of your fears.

> >> We should probably focus on getting Emacs 29 out soon
> > 
> > Why do you think this is not what happens?
> 
> I'm just saying we've spent enough time on this particular issue. We can 
> improve the docs the best we can and move on.

This is not the only issue that holds the next pretest.  So nothing is
lost by spending some more time on this, especially since it's now
clear the original longish discussion was at least partially based on
some kind of Rashomon effect.