From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2) [Documentation fix still remaining] Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:22:21 -0700 Message-ID: <5736d945-dff5-e03a-499e-ce2054815ea6@dancol.org> References: <83h9ashfgx.fsf@gnu.org> <831t1wharr.fsf@gnu.org> <20160810161821.GB3413@acm.fritz.box> <83wpjofttf.fsf@gnu.org> <20160810185735.GD3413@acm.fritz.box> <20160811112951.GA2154@acm.fritz.box> <7e1478b6-cf00-fcbf-8c24-43bdaa57e2b6@dancol.org> <415d1cca-f32c-624e-a4be-9aadcf8a0f17@dancol.org> <8cea494d-33e0-0a7d-2bd0-c8bfb9f597aa@dancol.org> <8760qie4f4.fsf@russet.org.uk> <8337lmntkk.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1472574202 26018 195.159.176.226 (30 Aug 2016 16:23:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 16:23:22 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 Cc: monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii , Phillip Lord Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 30 18:23:17 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1beloi-0006F2-Mg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:23:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50099 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1belog-0005Aa-CI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 12:23:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52370) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1belo7-0005AT-SJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 12:22:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1belo3-0002YP-L2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 12:22:38 -0400 Original-Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3]:53112) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1belo3-0002Xr-92; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 12:22:35 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:Cc:References:To:Subject; bh=AcUab1HEEEwMam20WPi6syPLA2IUB7gt2x+9mVlxprs=; b=Z+SDZ/fx/yRPzwwqboj/YzIMcrJ0Qd8qxZqSyk2xREkJveTW5ZqKwhuYJgABB1OHYVGkdRyCKyAo6iNa3DuMtdkSBZ9M5Iv/C2Adarm13W2QRapP/rFU2PnFmhc/4tbcx6Lq7VaV/3GkgW3g4dOduQvoFbBPfjEbOmXCmzzq1wCEBjDLYxhk4Ih6pfP9RYqU/9zp2/EZXJG7femnOaQJ/SDMXmNf00j/RbODulFM79g+eaOO9oBQ+AXxSecB8iPKKot59xqSorY+46DFa143AUCHOADaIWY/GUe7sMSbN5VarexbBA1ubEql14zNrI3/1A6YkoZqYUKZtQhEU3IXpQ==; Original-Received: from c-73-97-199-232.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([73.97.199.232] helo=[192.168.1.173]) by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1belnt-0006j1-Tt; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:22:25 -0700 In-Reply-To: <8337lmntkk.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:206958 Archived-At: On 08/30/2016 08:51 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) >> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:07:27 +0100 >> Cc: Daniel Colascione , emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> So having them balanced and consistent would be nice. I agree that in >> fixing this, bad things might happens. But surely that is a risk of >> fiddling with any core part of Emacs. One response would be to not to >> it. Another response would be to incrementally increase the number of >> test cases Emacs has to enable this (and other) changes in the core to >> be made with more confidence. > > My response is that we should not do it until we have decent test > coverage of the insdel functionality. I simply don't believe in our > ability to avoid breakage in this core functionality unless we have > good test coverage. Been there, done that, have bruises to prove it. More tests in general would be nice. I have no objection to requiring test coverage for insdel before making major changes; my objection is to a blanket ban on changes even *with* test coverage. I was the under the impression that your preference was for the latter model, but IIUC, you actually hold the former position.