From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: feature/package-vc has been merged Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 18:26:02 -0500 Message-ID: References: <164484721900.31751.1453162457552427931@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <8335auzo9s.fsf@gnu.org> <87zgd2ws8z.fsf@posteo.net> <831qqezkxj.fsf@gnu.org> <87y1slgq3m.fsf@posteo.net> <87bkpgfsqv.fsf@posteo.net> <87educ9fei.fsf@posteo.net> <8735as9cfb.fsf@posteo.net> <87pmdv98du.fsf@posteo.net> <87zgcz7qyy.fsf@posteo.net> <87mt8qnbaa.fsf@posteo.net> <87o7t6lr45.fsf@posteo.net> <87fseik0vg.fsf@posteo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="17885"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Philip Kaludercic Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 17 00:26:36 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 1ovRnf-0004NU-LW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 00:26:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ovRnJ-0000DW-NU; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 18:26:13 -0500 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 1ovRnH-0000DN-U9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 18:26:11 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ovRnG-0001BQ-In; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 18:26:11 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9FAF6440FD9; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 18:26:08 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 29B65440968; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 18:26:03 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1668641163; bh=q7mLFkyx5PrnApIrNuy0L5sLJ/tcZxyUIDWzxCDU8yo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Jo4IZ8J+T/K1uCSoBtbwXMzwOyuBE83XmpwgJYUUGPtTXQ1mwO6a98Ns+dSsqsxP7 Za8KiNoAfhieToYMeAvElFj1LyySOR7ysW85277ZE00Cc4NMd9RZahZ53fti99sWuO 4CW02KgIB/ZdadIF9jj0+tUfwuU1oHQ2/tjQ8n+L8ixSIX1ctpnV6zcRAMeAWI+dvQ MOcTjIGJMKyhvHFzTU2UL3oyoHAr+hsrASSvQOU0z8A6Kt4TA2AQPU3awOdZ7Rk+3f yMhhqARPj+LHCyaj+D4ihVr7UsrPWwF9xrPsj37fuyUUGzAqLRJIWH33M/HEWZ+m7L VLOm0SH4pwwPQ== Original-Received: from lechazo (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0F712120351; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 18:26:03 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87fseik0vg.fsf@posteo.net> (Philip Kaludercic's message of "Wed, 16 Nov 2022 22:09:23 +0000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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:299995 Archived-At: >>> As mentioned below, I think the harm is that unintended error could >>> appear. But I get your argument too, that mistakes should be fixed in >>> general and having these pop up during byte compilation is a good way to >>> make these more noticeable... >> Either way is fine by me, every use of `lisp-dir` should come with >> a comment justifying it, IMO. > I've decided to remove the function entirely. I don't understand what you're referring to. I was not talking about any particular function but about all uses of the (package-vc-specific) `:lisp-dir` information in `package.el`. Stefan