Re: trunk r115926: In preparation for the move to git, sanitize out some Bazaar-specific names.

["Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com>]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com> wrote:
> 
> > By your own analysis, there is *no* compatible fix.  Whatever the function
> > and variable are called, stuff is going to break because the revision-ID
> > format is different.
> 
> It won't be able to extract the required information, because it will
> not exist anymore. But, as that code is checking for nil, it won't
> break. Your change will make it break:
> 
> (setq emacs-repository-version "fce2a09142ddccc242931edd16712c2c24e10e8e")
> 
> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument number-or-marker-p
> fce2a09142ddccc242931edd16712c2c24e10e8e)
>   -(115933 fce2a09142ddccc242931edd16712c2c24e10e8e)
>   (and (and (boundp (quote emacs-bzr-version)) emacs-bzr-version) (-
> (read (emacs-bzr-get-version)) (read emacs-bzr-version)))
>   eval((and (and (boundp (quote emacs-bzr-version)) emacs-bzr-version)
> (- (read (emacs-bzr-get-version)) (read emacs-bzr-version))) nil)
>   eval-last-sexp-1(nil)
>   eval-last-sexp(nil)
>   call-interactively(eval-last-sexp nil nil)
>   command-execute(eval-last-sexp)

That's before putting the function alias in place, right?  I'm going to push 
a change to fix that. The only reason I haven't already is that I have
another change waiting 

> But anyway, that's not even the issue. The issue is that we had an
> interface which said that it would return a string with some format,
> or nil.

That is correct.

> You want to keep that interface, but make it return something
> different. That's incompatible *and* unnecessary.

That is incorrect.  emacs-bzr-get-version will return *exactly the name thing*
as it did before the change, *under all circumstances*.  That's the point
of the alias. Are you telling me the alias geature doesn't work?  If so,
we have larger problems...

>                                            And you seem to
> insist just because you don't like the idea of the old APIs being
> around in loadup.el?

That's right.  The old API was misdesigned; it leaked information that
it should not. Since that can be fixed in a compatible way, it should be.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>