From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Stability of core packages (was: Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 17:42:20 +0300 Message-ID: <835y9q62er.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <83a5z482e3.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfcu6g1l.fsf@gnu.org> <83a5z2646y.fsf@gnu.org> <453fdbd2-a29c-5ba6-0e16-21fd8f338f10@gutov.dev> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="1515"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 20 16:42:38 2023 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 1ppVUc-0000Dq-JG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 16:42:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVU9-0003RB-5E; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:42:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVU8-0003R0-97 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:42:08 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVU7-0005Mx-U0; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:42:07 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=UySin3AuSe9frtnpGZQ5yDyxJeeIuTzdFRk9RBHc9Co=; b=CxYFBFa5Z6wA Z+aWSxQrDvqWxuZp7V2bFe2vQ2O+yPwPfGw276viTG7ydXMIf2nW0LcaPQzwcr1wiU5peLQBYvqrA F+sSobRtLvhMWQ2dGz8d59ax3EQBrCkL+f6JFcekiFXsVgO2vuz7fsIhxsDtc4Mwc4a4b1rt3eEqJ //vaFDrjTb7q7a4Js6ZHV1pIqDXpJig7P2YbaAg4Vuvw/UzD6XkjixuFgQz6K8h67asNt+AHbIHOz 2Ps3yML2VkQWphjqPB8zkrSE4EYQi61xq+fWoT8u60EV4HZYk+YjUMnSWVDLgfiKkLb+UU8Ar+Bph x623OkLrvRtTUqbdVAbucQ==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVU7-0002OU-CT; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:42:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <453fdbd2-a29c-5ba6-0e16-21fd8f338f10@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Thu, 20 Apr 2023 17:22:03 +0300) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:305516 Archived-At: > Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 17:22:03 +0300 > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > > > Users who cannot > > wait until the next bug-fix release, but still want stabil > > > > ity, will be > > able to upgrade their Eglot to a newer version, provided that we mark > > some newer version on ELPA "stable" after "N weeks" or so. Finally, > > users who want newer Eglot badly and are willing to sacrifice some > > stability will update to the latest-and-greatest version on ELPA, even > > if it is not "stable" yet. > > So we seem to agree that the ability to upgrade is important as well. Yes. > Whether we're able to transition to a new system with stability tags, > etc, is yet to be seen. Indeed. In fact, it remains to be seen even if we have a broad-enough agreement to consider transitioning to such a system a Good Thing. > The main downsides of this are probably obvious: > > - The development work required. > - The additional ongoing package maintenance work that is implied by > this design. Agreed. I just don't see how will we be ever able to move to keeping core packages only on ELPA if we don't transition to such a system, or something like it.