Ok to backport Eshell manual improvements to 29?

Ok to backport Eshell manual improvements to 29?

[Jim Porter]

I just pushed a branch - "scratch/backport-eshell-docs-to-29" - that 
backports all the relevant changes to the Eshell manual that are 
currently on master. I've double-checked that the documentation all 
looks right to me (specifically that the 29 branch doesn't mention any 
features only present on master), but before I merge to the 29 branch, I 
wanted to give others the chance to look over the changes too.

I've opted not to squash any of the commits and to add a note to each 
commit message indicating the Git SHA for each master commit. Hopefully 
that will make it easier if anyone needs to look back on these commits 
in the future.

Re: Ok to backport Eshell manual improvements to 29?

[Michael Albinus]

Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com> writes:

Hi Jim,

> I just pushed a branch - "scratch/backport-eshell-docs-to-29" - that
> backports all the relevant changes to the Eshell manual that are
> currently on master. I've double-checked that the documentation all
> looks right to me (specifically that the 29 branch doesn't mention any
> features only present on master), but before I merge to the 29 branch,
> I wanted to give others the chance to look over the changes too.
>
> I've opted not to squash any of the commits and to add a note to each
> commit message indicating the Git SHA for each master
> commit. Hopefully that will make it easier if anyone needs to look
> back on these commits in the future.

I haven't checked each commit. Just a diff between eshell.texi in master
and scratch/backport-eshell-docs-to-29. One minor nit: in node
Variables, you have deleted "@vindex $INSIDE_EMACS". Pls keep it.

Otherwise, it LGTM.

Best regards, Michael.

Re: Ok to backport Eshell manual improvements to 29?

[Jim Porter]

On 7/13/2023 12:14 AM, Michael Albinus wrote:
> I haven't checked each commit. Just a diff between eshell.texi in master
> and scratch/backport-eshell-docs-to-29. One minor nit: in node
> Variables, you have deleted "@vindex $INSIDE_EMACS". Pls keep it.

Thanks for the catch. That was apparently fixed in commit 0bb8a011d5 on 
master (which added 'file-user-uid' and the special Eshell '$UID' 
variable). I didn't cherry-pick that patch, since it was a new feature; 
I'll just fix that in a separate commit for 29.

Re: Ok to backport Eshell manual improvements to 29?

[Jim Porter]

On 7/13/2023 9:10 AM, Jim Porter wrote:
> Thanks for the catch. That was apparently fixed in commit 0bb8a011d5 on 
> master (which added 'file-user-uid' and the special Eshell '$UID' 
> variable). I didn't cherry-pick that patch, since it was a new feature; 
> I'll just fix that in a separate commit for 29.

Now merged to the emacs-29 branch as 6a360b08405.

Re: Ok to backport Eshell manual improvements to 29?

[Juri Linkov]

> Now merged to the emacs-29 branch as 6a360b08405.

Is there a policy that requires deleting a merged branch?
(I'm asking because it was very convenient to type just "-29"
to complete to the "emacs-29" branch, but now the name
"backport-eshell-docs-to-29" gets in the way ;-)

Re: Ok to backport Eshell manual improvements to 29?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 10:10:13 +0300
> 
> > Now merged to the emacs-29 branch as 6a360b08405.
> 
> Is there a policy that requires deleting a merged branch?

They should be deleted eventually, but we don't require them to be
deleted as soon as they land on the main branches.  It is up to the
branch owner to decide when to delete the branch; there could be
reasons to wait for some short time, like if any leftovers are
anticipated that are easier handled on the branch.

Re: Ok to backport Eshell manual improvements to 29?

[Jim Porter]

On 7/14/2023 12:10 AM, Juri Linkov wrote:
> Is there a policy that requires deleting a merged branch?
> (I'm asking because it was very convenient to type just "-29"
> to complete to the "emacs-29" branch, but now the name
> "backport-eshell-docs-to-29" gets in the way ;-)

I deleted my scratch branch right after merging it[1]. Maybe you just 
need to call something like `git remote prune origin` to clean up your 
local references to the branch?

[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-diffs/2023-07/msg00305.html

Re: Ok to backport Eshell manual improvements to 29?

[Juri Linkov]

>> Is there a policy that requires deleting a merged branch?
>> (I'm asking because it was very convenient to type just "-29"
>> to complete to the "emacs-29" branch, but now the name
>> "backport-eshell-docs-to-29" gets in the way ;-)
>
> I deleted my scratch branch right after merging it[1]. Maybe you just need
> to call something like `git remote prune origin` to clean up your local
> references to the branch?

Thanks, this helped.  I don't remember using this command before,
but maybe because I always used `git fetch -p origin`.