Re: Stability of core packages (was: Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot)

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:48:03 +0100
> Cc: arne_bab@web.de, jporterbugs@gmail.com, dmitry@gutov.dev, 
> 	emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> > > Recognize this writing? It is yours!
> >
> > Yes.  Of course, you conveniently omitted the next paragraph I wrote,
> > which described a different group of users, whose expectations would
> > be broken by the changes you proposed.  That was also "my writing".
> 
> The code I'm trying to write should appease both.  But you should
> help characterize these users.

I have.

> > > > You assume that everyone will
> > > > want Eglot and use-package automatically updated, but this assumption
> > > > has no real basis.
> > >
> > > First, of course it has real statistical basis! Didn't I send you
> > > links to tens and tens of issues were users reported their configurations
> > > and one can actually see what users are doing to install Eglot?
> >
> > Since when "tens" and "everyone" are the same thing?
> 
> Come on, you know that "everyone" is impossible to prove.

I didn't expect you to prove it.  My point is that your proposed
solution is only correct if "everyone" indeed wants to update Eglot,
and if not, your solution helps one group and breaks another.  I
cannot agree to such lopsided solutions.

> Aren't tens (actually hundreds, I think) a good data point.

Not enough to justify breaking the rest.

> Can you show even one issue where someone was surprised/harmed by
> furtive unintented updates of dependencies?

You just heard one of them in this thread.

> > It is clear that you like the solution you proposed, and see no
> > problems with it.  But I disagree, and at this point I have explained
> > my disagreement enough times.
> 
> No you haven't, sorry.

Surer, I did.  You just don't like the explanation, and so you pretend
it doesn't exist.

> I don't think that's time wasted: it's the only way the discussion
> can advance.

I don't think this discussion with you can make any progress.  That
hope was lost long ago, when I first said we should agree to disagree
and leave it at that.