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: [elpa] main 8f4cb59: * elpa-packages (counsel, ivy, swiper): Auto-sync. Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:48:26 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20210225102521.11653.64611@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20210225102523.7CEF420B28@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <87h7m0z07r.fsf@tcd.ie> <87mtvsundg.fsf@tcd.ie> <875z20m0oa.fsf@tcd.ie> <87eegn18rr.fsf@tcd.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="25333"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Oleh Krehel To: "Basil L. Contovounesios" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 11 17:19:11 2021 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 1lKO1n-0006Sp-Hi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 17:19:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37224 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lKO1m-0005Yq-Is for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 11:19:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58680) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lKNYA-0007WR-Fb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:48:35 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:5446) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lKNY7-0003Ny-Sd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:48:33 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 03175440B22; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:48:29 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 64A97440981; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:48:27 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1615477707; bh=wm6fWZ+n2gCU63BjqUEQ0YdQ49QwakATHeQF2jlCqr0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Cb14sdE76sclG/14NcPvjBL9aqs3BwHTLMhz8gDsH4HcDu95FZCUMXJB4ChJ+upU4 q7np9zHieoji7EUw5D5B/zDdZ8bW6CDSaTQAoNsQQaGsijwPpqNvmPmS2vgc41dcw1 uV8KLsCG9ipvHJRx+eBvVFh2yXZEVF66FvCzWl4OPqSnzOQSRpoaNgBjui1bAm4fVJ ssqOb3E5QmXYiYmqLW6LRx10bs4Bsvpy6jQwzYbEmSmfe2XOscTN/WAtXktNODsrkw hNN8j9/FXDFHJeo34Sb74Xr7R5mWYszY50utCj5O+lvEIfjtdr9GIFfoz2p9Rapur1 uxrGOhtmWH5xw== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.43.249]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A927120211; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:48:27 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87eegn18rr.fsf@tcd.ie> (Basil L. Contovounesios's message of "Wed, 10 Mar 2021 12:40:56 +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: 2.1.23 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:266330 Archived-At: >> - change the versions after merging rather than before (as mentioned >> above). It's an easy low-tech solution, but it involves N times more >> work if a single .git upstream version leads to N downstream releases. > O(2N) is still O(N) though, so not much worse than the status quo. ;-) >> - as discussed earlier, we could have each subpackage have the complete >> upstream Git and only create the subpackages via `elpa-package` >> filtering out the other files. > That would be nice to have in general, but it doesn't solve the > inefficiency when multiple packages are bundled from the same repo. I don't understand the "when ..." qualification, since my suggestion is only meaningful in that precise case. As for the inefficiency: as long as the upstream is not enormous and that we don't have too many packages following that model, it's bearable. > Unless, of course, we either stop caring about the inefficiency (run out > of hair to pull?) or significantly complicate the Git dance, e.g.: > https://stackoverflow.com/q/600079/3084001 No subtree: I really mean the whole Git branch being duplicated will-nilly for each subpackage. >> - if there's really only one version number shared by all the >> sub-packages, I'd tend to argue that maybe there should only be one >> package ;-) > I tend to agree ;). Not my call to make, though, and that ship is > either getting smaller or sailing away. >> - split the upstream repository. > Not my call to make. Of course it can also be a mix of the two and it can be done in bits and pieces: every bit helps. So maybe we can start by lobbying the upstream for one specific subpackage we identified as being a good candidate for either a separate upstream repository or for having the subpackage be merged with another. >> a "don't look for commit in history" (after all, that's what the old >> GNU ELPA script used to do: it used whichever commit was >> HEAD when we discovered that the `Version:` "had changed" (meaning >> the version in HEAD corresponds to not-yet-built file)). > > The bump-after-merge works better for me personally, as I don't have to > worry about when to push which commits. I know what you mean: that's exactly why the new code goes to the trouble of checking the commit that modified the `Version:` line. It's all too common for me to want to bump the version right before installing experimental new code. > I guess another alternative to :version-map would be Git tags? > E.g. using an N.N.N-elpa scheme or something like that. Fetching tags from upstream is problematic (because we have a single elpa.git repository for all packages), but we could use tags manually pushed to elpa.git, yes. Stefan