From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Stealing a default face from a non-ELPA package Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2022 08:24:51 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87zgm4lst1.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000015196405d9745e53" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="11877"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Brian Leung , emacs-devel To: Tim Cross Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 05 09:26:17 2022 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 1nQPjz-0002r3-Du for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2022 09:26:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54280 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nQPjx-0001lu-UK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2022 03:26:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:33102) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nQPiq-0000rS-Ns for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2022 03:25:05 -0500 Original-Received: from [2607:f8b0:4864:20::c32] (port=46741 helo=mail-oo1-xc32.google.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nQPio-0007je-Mt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2022 03:25:04 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-oo1-xc32.google.com with SMTP id w3-20020a4ac183000000b0031d806bbd7eso12033441oop.13 for ; Sat, 05 Mar 2022 00:25:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=twt17wm9sPfbFpxCULm6XaEZHYGHQW4pttGa6h/5DQ0=; b=OL5OPHfnnda0t3P0Uz0T27JtvAWOrqAs4POcjEpxKf5U6W2BRKzMv1I9X4zhSpJaNx RJed7NXLcKuDaewusHyblAQFZQMGtsOZmaQzIoFrquhCZ1UvV6ggstFE5E9Vk0wAgMUW 7DXXDJyY4SGjHQpMfqSvnY2bY9VnnrH2y3LSoV6aNK/trJzLwq4ExE/++33iY8nVIXeY 8YNF7eGs/F6xYWoYbZFt089Xsl84muki9F0g3/A4gEzfPqXhLOeeLfV8J5EsMPVuQ6W4 sSZDpvSPzANdFrAXu3biJONcjoIcKXWsqF9m7S16G+oN38UFCbsg/3mV5rmv7NxSCeP/ grUA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=twt17wm9sPfbFpxCULm6XaEZHYGHQW4pttGa6h/5DQ0=; b=nCbrHUOfWe1lXpc2bNYIQJnDmFbUOcNOAHwvVJ/CvFMhmpgu0DjIokobjU9asuUl+e DJgtObBUiyv4O8DbqlgmeZscBhIWtLKIbJmPyEzXYd0yDPr88HfmPsuhpnlb9gw1nadG be/X2LNsO4cMRq/BtQsrny2yzj4IDS49/4ecKpixtTIWz09eMfoDH+rUo+FIL8BbYMKr zu1bOIlZQmC+6jVk7uH73ahSlMHdaRBMEsRwugThBFxfrJxl5juFAk21yLmyxJPdimVT C3rhCNOTZBwbk9HC/1wV6Kk3sy86n6Rdbx0o7hwvtNCayT2xOhYIgGkJ9zCNgcsenPrO ONVQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532PHFoyKZIElJAvEe0MBNjqjbNs22WJqIK6gr1mjWJ4/RHrYPb3 pRJCrmkRMpgpDdqYhgL7W2VdB0XCf4aUfKNiTYyr+jsn X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyjnqlmbasrkjIiFkqHWazTLJETC0LwPzKQFPD3um07ciRDOaJzceZ3P/dXGuVirDhZ++iKJA6crpp4OoFkMno= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:f5a2:b0:d9:a39d:1e42 with SMTP id eh34-20020a056870f5a200b000d9a39d1e42mr10175554oab.19.1646468701426; Sat, 05 Mar 2022 00:25:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87zgm4lst1.fsf@gmail.com> X-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for 2607:f8b0:4864:20::c32 (failed) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::c32; envelope-from=joaotavora@gmail.com; helo=mail-oo1-xc32.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: (-0.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_HP_HELO_NORDNS=0.659, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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:286835 Archived-At: --00000000000015196405d9745e53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Tim, The goal here, I think, was not to decide if the change had merit or not. As far as I understand there are demonstrable functional problems with the faces default settings as chosen by Brian himself. I presume Brian is just trying to fix those problems, a legitimate goal that cannot be left to "theme authors". There is such a thing as the "default theme" and we are all its authors. Brian is just asking if it is "legal" to take inspiration for decorative face settings from a different project outside GNU ELPA. I believe it is quite legal, but I'm not a specialist so suggested he ask here. Jo=C3=A3o On Sat, Mar 5, 2022, 08:14 Tim Cross wrote: > > Brian Leung writes: > > > I sent this question to the mailing list this morning but I can't see i= t > on the > > list archives, so I'm trying to send it again: > > > > In > > > https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/discussions/858#discussioncomment-228= 8255 > , > > a user noticed that lsp-mode used as a face default a much nicer settin= g > > than what currently exists in eglot. Given that lsp-mode is not part of > > ELPA, can we steal its setting and use it in eglot? > > "much nicer" is a very subjective metric. What you think is much nicer I > might think is much uglier. Tweaking face properties is really best left > to either individuals or theme authors. > > From what I can tell in that thread, all that is being proposed is to > change the foreground colour of an eglot face to use the same value as a > lsp-mode face. If that is the case, I don't see any copyright violation > here. All that is being done is changing the value of a face. As the > code used to define faces is part of core Emacs, your not talking about > code change, only default value change. > > I do think it is a pointless change. While the proposed new foreground > colour might look better to one individual using specific hardware on a > specific platform with a specific theme, it could look much worse to > another user on a different platform, with different hardware and a > different theme who will then log an issue requesting that the face be > changed to something they think is a better default setting. > > Purpose of default face settings should be to set a face which is usable > for the widest selection of users, regardless of hardware, platform or > type of environment (GUI/Terminal/Console). Fiddling with face > aesthetics is best left to theme authors. > --00000000000015196405d9745e53 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Tim,

T= he goal here, I think, was not to decide if the change had merit or not. As= far as I understand there are demonstrable functional problems with the fa= ces default settings as chosen by Brian himself.

I presume Brian is just trying to fix those problems, a = legitimate goal that cannot be left to "theme authors". There is = such a thing as the "default theme" and we are all its authors.

Brian is just asking if i= t is "legal" to take inspiration for decorative face settings fro= m a different project outside GNU ELPA. I believe it is quite legal, but I&= #39;m not a specialist so suggested he ask here.
Jo=C3=A3o=C2=A0

On Sat, Mar 5, 2022, 08= :14 Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmai= l.com> wrote:

Brian Leung <leungbk@posteo.net> writes:

> I sent this question to the mailing list this morning but I can't = see it on the
> list archives, so I'm trying to send it again:
>
> In
> https:/= /github.com/joaotavora/eglot/discussions/858#discussioncomment-2288255,=
> a user noticed that lsp-mode used as a face default a much nicer setti= ng
> than what currently exists in eglot. Given that lsp-mode is not part o= f
> ELPA, can we steal its setting and use it in eglot?

"much nicer" is a very subjective metric. What you think is much = nicer I
might think is much uglier. Tweaking face properties is really best left to either individuals or theme authors.

>From what I can tell in that thread, all that is being proposed is to
change the foreground colour of an eglot face to use the same value as a lsp-mode face. If that is the case, I don't see any copyright violation=
here. All that is being done is changing the value of a face. As the
code used to define faces is part of core Emacs, your not talking about
code change, only default value change.

I do think it is a pointless change. While the proposed new foreground
colour might look better to one individual using specific hardware on a
specific platform with a specific theme, it could look much worse to
another user on a different platform, with different hardware and a
different theme who will then log an issue requesting that the face be
changed to something they think is a better default setting.

Purpose of default face settings should be to set a face which is usable for the widest selection of users, regardless of hardware, platform or
type of environment (GUI/Terminal/Console). Fiddling with face
aesthetics is best left to theme authors.=C2=A0 =C2=A0
--00000000000015196405d9745e53--