From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andrew Hyatt Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: A proposal for removing obsolete packages Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:05:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83twmkkv16.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1145542e2dba5b0529c6fd4d X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1453309536 4081 80.91.229.3 (20 Jan 2016 17:05:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:05:36 +0000 (UTC) To: John Wiegley , Richard Stallman , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 20 18:05:31 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aLwCJ-0000oH-J1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:05:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44217 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aLwCJ-00039i-2c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:05:31 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39441) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aLwC5-0002v4-0L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:05:18 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aLwC3-0007Wi-Qd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:05:16 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-vk0-x22a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22a]:35842) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aLwC0-0007W6-7t; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:05:12 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-vk0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id n1so8323973vkb.3; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:05:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=VMTXTJbXkeDvZRx7bnzzHv53DiMiNZR/effpWD25hhc=; b=QIbQzvFFvcGSC9u4Vzxr95FoYYN99PMLsai6MbXNjJSDf/kYmbKoQR7lrmPNCwKaHC FTIt7y1EtQi40m1VvRfcMhPPskrBVlhCjVkv1O3MK8foB0mH0qO/epQbegElIShcX0mV ei235N5IdVnmgR+chT/zXLBj/gBaan5WsERSnIQinhfFYWDQSGWFwfGHexJyOM36uIrD g1+0u8qbrYJ2cmz2fKKk19EUN4QYfTzbtaBex7atn6MiL+oYkMwN8idwXgt3BpTOxqc5 VVDzkYFDq9wtDpkB7HZiJ9JB/UHJYqvLczXW/vXeQTYAS+tNfVbFmwPyld/8Og5WlZgw zr9Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=VMTXTJbXkeDvZRx7bnzzHv53DiMiNZR/effpWD25hhc=; b=AI6RHPV+cCvWfalN1Czw3dqN2HfdVjNTnJxjs/H8UV33WnEYr/TrueVEJwL2c33gQD RnQH9P+VaRCUu44KHU1hdKrZ7cZ1wgV2o87n8beYQ5IiLfnoNz5/J9v3N2wbaesSRga+ cgun3RjIprMtY5rFWwu+vQBjANP0Trsv27Wsi5M22SOP1Xb4P0cUG09zhpkZ+TAIe9OG bmhTIM5EiGFWroJ3GQ/1cbjo6/PpRGKPkHfHMYZ5mb/qIpOMy3zb2ojOXPjG26pr1BmM T565CM1WPYdCqU872LCVjMJsLYab59L1XkDNHq8Tih6jymwpzwtcFfWO6479MSYRqKW5 CiOA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlWn+WzvWygtB27svMKrZYV3aLeFpOXyUGA7D3P6IvRIMZiXqT3qdFfEXg4khZ/ibOfg9XCB/Cg4lQxJlD3UdolaYh4JQ== X-Received: by 10.31.8.83 with SMTP id 80mr25725171vki.105.1453309511447; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:05:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22a X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:198441 Archived-At: --001a1145542e2dba5b0529c6fd4d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:29 PM John Wiegley wrote: > >>>>> Richard Stallman writes: > > > I think we should state that as a lower bound, a minimum period to wait, > not > > as a default. To have a default waiting period before deleting obsolete > > features would lead us to act rigidly, rather than considering in each > case > > what is best for the users. > > I'm quite OK with being flexible about when we feel it's time to delete old > code. > > To summarize the final position: Once code has been in "obsolete" for a > complete release cycle, removal may be recommended by those who feel it's > time > for the code to go. Once it's truly gone, any bugs against it and remaining > documentation can follow. > I think that summary has one key difference to what we previously discussed, and I think that difference is problematic. My goal in starting this thread was to find a way for emacs to be able to remove functionality. But the proposal, as John puts it, would in effect keep code around forever. Someone will have to, at the right time, make an argument that the code should be removed, and be willing to advocate for it. This is too high a burden for code that's been in obsolete for years. I think the burden should be on people to advocate for it's continued existence. Specifically, we can, at the start of a major release, put out a list of all obsolete functionality that the maintainer feels is safe to delete, and ask if anyone has objections to deleting them. Making the default to delete instead of keep will have a real difference on how much code actually gets removed. > -- > John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F > http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2 > --001a1145542e2dba5b0529c6fd4d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Jan 19= , 2016 at 11:29 PM John Wiegley <j= wiegley@gmail.com> wrote:
&g= t;>>>> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> I think we should state that as a lower bound, a minimum period to wai= t, not
> as a default. To have a default waiting period before deleting obsolet= e
> features would lead us to act rigidly, rather than considering in each= case
> what is best for the users.

I'm quite OK with being flexible about when we feel it's time to de= lete old
code.

To summarize the final position: Once code has been in "obsolete"= for a
complete release cycle, removal may be recommended by those who feel it'= ;s time
for the code to go. Once it's truly gone, any bugs against it and remai= ning
documentation can follow.

I think that = summary has one key difference to what we previously discussed, and I think= that difference is problematic.

My goal in starti= ng this thread was to find a way for emacs to be able to remove functionali= ty.=C2=A0 But the proposal, as John puts it, would in effect keep code arou= nd forever.=C2=A0 Someone will have to, at the right time, make an argument= that the code should be removed, and be willing to advocate for it.=C2=A0 = This is too high a burden for code that's been in obsolete for years.= =C2=A0 I think the burden should be on people to advocate for it's cont= inued existence. =C2=A0

Specifically, we can, at t= he start of a major release, put out a list of all obsolete functionality t= hat the maintainer feels is safe to delete, and ask if anyone has objection= s to deleting them. =C2=A0

Making the default to d= elete instead of keep will have a real difference on how much code actually= gets removed.


--
John Wiegley=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = GPG fingerprint =3D 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
htt= p://newartisans.com=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2
--001a1145542e2dba5b0529c6fd4d--