From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Martin Edstrom" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Reconsider defaults for use-package-vc-prefer-newest Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 23:09:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="30182"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: "emacs-devel" To: "chad" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 15 23:10:04 2024 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 1spwVP-0007gh-LS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 23:10:04 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1spwUf-0008Mk-Cf; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 17:09:17 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1spwUd-0008MO-Hp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 17:09:15 -0400 Original-Received: from mailtransmit04.runbox.com ([2a0c:5a00:149::25]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1spwUa-00049y-T9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 17:09:15 -0400 Original-Received: from mailtransmit02.runbox ([10.9.9.162] helo=aibo.runbox.com) by mailtransmit04.runbox.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1spwUU-00BlqK-6U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 23:09:06 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=runbox.eu; s=selector1; h=Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Subject:CC:To:From: MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type; bh=dq1nQaDdBTx5OVPsFcMM27hQDmcwTTHFARf4yCHUtUI=; b=F5vR2fskpYH/vCbe/XRhmJu26B tFkml+VeYDecJpqGuAvt1jrYx6ZRIxlztqqo4usUHJVpDbzNbL8eXXKsf3b+Qhiukn7uJxLYHJQrV lzclHmzXuT8G9Y3uQCH0pcdLfilp0G7jfskSDI37KXRn10YBOz3eqNn48u7QJqMe1B1RKdG+vECio /PP0D5smOTDEUtscYZebpjUSsFiOxx4SL2gNWZU7cngbXPjvB75yLwIDpsRO8CI5tqUue34TsJPtc EecKMUyGyDzb4uaN3EbbK51qFlYHSgQijPXpolS+irHosoJNRtbsnd7pX8cFxd8FLBCIYC9kr32Wx Bs6WSFUw==; Original-Received: from [10.9.9.127] (helo=rmmprod05.runbox) by mailtransmit02.runbox with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1spwUT-00014P-NW; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 23:09:05 +0200 Original-Received: from mail by rmmprod05.runbox with local (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1spwUT-0004Ps-ME; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 23:09:05 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline Original-Received: from [Authenticated alias (1196375)] by runbox.com with http (RMM6); Sun, 15 Sep 2024 21:09:05 GMT X-RMM-Aliasid: 1196375 X-Mailer: RMM6 In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a0c:5a00:149::25; envelope-from=meedstrom@runbox.eu; helo=mailtransmit04.runbox.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001 autolearn=ham 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:323644 Archived-At: > Please forgive me if I misunderstand the situation, but I wonder if it > wouldn't be possible to suggest a patch that leaves the conservative > default but detects the potential "catastrophe" and warns the user? >=20 > Thanks, > ~Chad The "catastrophe" would be a situation such as: - In 2020, Developer releases Package for the first time - In 2021, Developer tires of bumping Package-Version, leaves it at 0.9 - In 2024, Package is now at 2.2 according to the convenient git/hg tag, or= maybe it has no official version beyond just "0.9.0.50-git" - User installs Package using (use-package :vc) - User gets the version from 2021 - It doesn't seem to work - 10 such users give up on Package - The 11th user files the bug reports - Bug reports are strange and make no sense - User and Developer finally figure out that it's because the user used (us= e-package :vc) which fetched the 2021 version To counteract this would amount to a heuristic that looks up the package re= pository online and compares the age of recent commits with the commit fetc= hed by (use-package :vc), but what is the threshold that you would set to t= rigger the warning? I don't think it is realistically doable.=