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.bugs Subject: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 08:19:52 +0300 Message-ID: <83a5ysshvr.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> <831qk8w2rx.fsf@gnu.org> <0295d425-7c42-9a09-bda0-d3e4c92b4ff4@gutov.dev> <56893beb-90a2-7936-1c67-62ce3bae3f5d@gutov.dev> <837ctxubk4.fsf@gnu.org> <83ttx1siyv.fsf@gnu.org> <73003a28-a855-8941-58bf-8f56f5fdb8b8@gutov.dev> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="34405"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 28 07:20:25 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@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 1psGWv-0008iw-1v for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 07:20:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1psGWg-0000AU-0Z; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:20:11 -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 1psGWc-0000A2-07 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:20:07 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1psGWY-0006P8-KA for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:20:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1psGWY-0005ZD-5z for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:20:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 05:20:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 62720 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 62720-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B62720.168265918221368 (code B ref 62720); Fri, 28 Apr 2023 05:20:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Apr 2023 05:19:42 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60220 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1psGWB-0005YX-1n for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:19:42 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:57820) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1psGW0-0005YA-7Z for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:19:37 -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 1psGVt-0006NO-HU; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:19:21 -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=ArXr1DxEajBFtbcwOl1pS3I0aPfEwAJ1cQmvNJMfRfQ=; b=H/7qEKa1VXvj /h/qZxOM020+oEFYSDS1k7bd80wFxzj7rbSC4MNwDpHzh0z0GD3kOP0kWgfGlgFMaD83efBNXWIJy TZg6W/JOfhUTQd7BRaJg3MJVWekkotEjAV0O+kILJM/HhkrcVXy17a9Vkj1xmiK+mCBTJY9i92RPJ QM/DgQep4679Axmm5nhvl7lXTE/LDY2M5rylNHUEndZSPydvp834dJmkF578K2W0bSMO+eoL5Q5I/ 89Dq1YJuHz2j6AMvZnYfkNaze3FNUZtWJXCI91YN7ox8D0BDKI7d5dDYQnMCtvlSDt0EJDOGzypwA o5ScQSPq8t6NahRvGHUfpw==; 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 1psGVs-0000AY-4H; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:19:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <73003a28-a855-8941-58bf-8f56f5fdb8b8@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Fri, 28 Apr 2023 02:51:19 +0300) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:260746 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 02:51:19 +0300 > Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com > From: Dmitry Gutov > > > We can say something like "Currently, ..." to make that clear. > > Very good, I've used that and an additional clarification for a > recommended alternative. Please see how you like it, or whether it needs > improving. I've made a few minor improvements, thanks. > Before the next pretest is cut, I'd also like to bring up the question > again of backporting the patch for bug#62816 (with Joao's support: > previously mentioned in > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=62720#517, for example). > > It improves the part of Eldoc that is not used by default > (eldoc-documentation-strategy has a different value) but which is used > by Eglot since it changes that variable in its managed buffers. That patch didn't yet accumulate enough time for me to consider it safe for the release branch. Depending on when Emacs 29.1 is released and whether we hear some downsides of the change, it could need to wait for Emacs 29.2 or for Emacs 30.1.