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: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 21:02:40 +0300 Message-ID: <83r0sf7nsv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <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> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="33728"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: arne_bab@web.de, joaotavora@gmail.com, jporterbugs@gmail.com, dmitry@gutov.dev, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: John Yates Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 19 20:03:20 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 1ppC9H-0008Vi-RW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 20:03:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppC8X-0004A5-73; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 14:02:33 -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 1ppC8U-00049l-TR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 14:02:31 -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 1ppC8T-00043O-2P; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 14:02:29 -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=PdIUsNo+iMElgSZnu4WUxxEJ5aIfJHHl4w6MR0YK+MQ=; b=nChu3wtGujsr XfSGyJ8PLqCXmh6UkPFG/T2PbNPzsSzHLOmydsMDqRj4xACaT/eSHt9yvhUv9/IakJzg3yKmokVDC pQludMKuJxLt1PoDTX8iH64q2kYYaRQ+DpkTjZaR2yXO6EyePEmQ3XG0mbgMyI3IhcMKU8RnEffcL /sOuIYMSnZM6i2NxRQivXHje4fiLSE5Gae69OuOGvReUsSaSJtwtoqLl+x2zt2IwvFaC7yeowsp2t AoUO3fnAmOjTinNRpcQPfoNFgwckD9QXMFJD4dGC1VMchLaNztOYtXHShmtBAZo0EGInGh5f3tv2K iiqhJjrrSRZimU9fxbDCtg==; 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 1ppC8S-00059Z-H4; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 14:02:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from John Yates on Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:35:36 -0400) 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:305448 Archived-At: > From: John Yates > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:35:36 -0400 > Cc: "Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide" , joaotavora@gmail.com, jporterbugs@gmail.com, > dmitry@gutov.dev, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Perhaps package.el should allow a user to declare whether (s)he wants > a stable experience or a "rolling release" experience. In that way the > issue is no longer a function of whether a package is :core or not. I agree. But such a change in package.el was impossible when the pretest already started. It should, however, be a necessary feature of package.el. > My initial thought was that this would be a single, global toggle. But I can > also imagine more granular choices (stable, rolling or unspecified) per > package archive and per individual package. There's a lot of new turf here to be explored. I hope we get it done in time for Emacs 30. But it wasn't a reasonable alternative for Emacs 29, because this issue was raised too late, and I don't think it would be TRT to delay Emacs 29.1 by another 6 months or so.