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: Accidental change of behaviour for electric-layout-mode? Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2024 21:06:35 +0300 Message-ID: <861q0xysb8.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87wmj2dr4q.fsf@ice9.digital> <86v7yle1ma.fsf@gnu.org> <86cyktdx68.fsf@gnu.org> <871q18op24.fsf@ice9.digital> <86msjwdgcq.fsf@gnu.org> <87r098n8n5.fsf@ice9.digital> <86jzf0c6rw.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6a37sh0.fsf@ice9.digital> <86tte3bu9x.fsf@gnu.org> <874j5tkvfm.fsf@ice9.digital> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="20518"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Morgan Willcock Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 03 20:07:22 2024 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 1swQET-0005Cm-IE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 03 Oct 2024 20:07:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1swQDr-0002PL-5u; Thu, 03 Oct 2024 14:06:43 -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 1swQDn-0002Oh-W0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Oct 2024 14:06:40 -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 1swQDm-0005Ok-H1; Thu, 03 Oct 2024 14:06:38 -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=NaEDc8frUGXC6Xeh3XQ3yUI60WCHsEO+wnvHC+8/Zxg=; b=oFxi8+mAZaXr VCsxajrzGpsw/jiiPQgu254kTixgku3e4r47zHE+YWPF/189LgXTPTBQTVKxrVtBmxXyR7d+umGmx /GuvC3ZEO7thKJDw+qwR9kRfsPhL+UvLng2RIFcVt4HYoXBWkoDFniSam9FV0reueUXBAsYiDXEW7 OvbCB5idPESshTVeUPygOJ3nJeFlYp1wTmbi7/oeKIvbYfDm1+AijBjfimcRcQDYwhTze9AUAD0vS ewrZaU02W0g5pABbpIy/lpV6liPMNEman/WAK8wokKFo1TIyI8Rc6tkGk1gY3JM6hz/78MpJe8W87 Rnd5Tjy3AQaOqC+IkJUrcw==; In-Reply-To: <874j5tkvfm.fsf@ice9.digital> (message from Morgan Willcock on Thu, 03 Oct 2024 17:22:53 +0100) 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:324290 Archived-At: > From: Morgan Willcock > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2024 17:22:53 +0100 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> From: Morgan Willcock > >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > >> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 14:50:19 +0100 > >> > >> Just to make sure everything works in Emacs 30, I'd rather just revert > >> the accidental change than get further involved in the development of > >> this feature (at least in the short term). > >> > >> I've attached a patch which just reverts the change that was > >> accidentally applied. This should be all that is needed unless you > >> specifically want to accommodate features which accidentally worked in > >> an unreleased version of Emacs. > > > > Actually, having the variable is better, because we have run with this > > code for quite some time, and someone might rely on the unintended > > feature. So I think your original patch is better. > > Possibly it depends on whether there will be an additional pretest > release or not? If there was going to be one and it was accompanied by > a note to re-test any changes which were made to electric-layout-mode > rules, that might be enough. Unfortunately, doing this does not guarantee enough people will try the changed behavior, and so the relatively short time we still have until the release (even though there definitely will be one more pretest) doesn't allow us to make sure we can safely change the behavior at this late stage.