From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: when do we remove backward compatibility definitions? Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:36:16 +0200 Message-ID: <831skrcqtb.fsf@gnu.org> References: <834lpncsce.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1511296630 328 195.159.176.226 (21 Nov 2017 20:37:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 20:37:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: sds@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 21 21:37:04 2017 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 1eHFHw-0007m7-Ml for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 21:37:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36410 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eHFI2-0006SF-BR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:37:06 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37334) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eHFHQ-0006SA-PN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:36:29 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eHFHP-0000t9-Su for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:36:28 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:46628) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eHFHK-0000rd-Pw; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:36:22 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4173 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1eHFHK-0003SD-09; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:36:22 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Paul Eggert on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 12:18:41 -0800) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:220339 Archived-At: > Cc: sds@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Paul Eggert > Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 12:18:41 -0800 > > On 11/21/2017 12:03 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Let's instead solve practical problems with such issues. Are there > > any practical problems here? If so, what are they? > > The practical problem is that when we have cruft in the Emacs source > code that makes maintenance harder No, we don't have any cruft, not from my POV. > My attempt at writing a guideline for supporting obsolete Emacs features > is intended to be along similar lines. It is not meant to be > prescriptive and so I shouldn't have used the word "policy" to describe > it. It is merely meant as a common-sense guideline for when Emacs > features are so obsolete that they can be removed if that simplifies > maintenance. Sorry, I'm not interested in discussing abstract policies that have no specific problems behind them. It's a waste of our time. If there is a specific problem with the variables Sam saw, let's discuss those instead.