From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Philip Kaludercic Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#62750: 29.0.50; Commands 'package-update' and 'package-update-all' should be called '*-upgrade' Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:25:04 +0000 Message-ID: <875ya3euof.fsf@posteo.net> References: <2726a957-a2a8-3b89-8930-2d620d83491e@alphapapa.net> <83sfd7c1v1.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="22011"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Adam Porter , Lars Ingebrigtsen , Stefan Monnier , 62750@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 10 15:25:20 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 1plrWK-0005Vv-6w for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:25:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1plrW4-0002vG-Qn; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:25:04 -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 1plrW2-0002uk-Ug for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:25:02 -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 1plrW2-00067x-KN for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:25:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1plrW1-0001Qm-Uu for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:25:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Philip Kaludercic Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:25:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 62750 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 62750-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B62750.16811330845467 (code B ref 62750); Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:25:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 62750) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Apr 2023 13:24:44 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34563 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1plrVk-0001Q7-4h for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:24:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:60471) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1plrVi-0001Ps-4C for 62750@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:24:42 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69B7D240220 for <62750@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:24:36 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681133076; bh=ZfuLDN27FazLhMLdVLNoikx2UxyTFCHoGm29LEoj7AE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=QKCcPL5evBJu3u0Oe1UQhrr52vzYHPcekrmWig1kZHprraM1Ed8GJVVj56MAHAyEg XB7xIgMPCZnd0n3Kx/fpM82Oy7aR6zrfpLDGdYc8KLcfCbnP/8BqRdzXcgBp42VhDD GcTGw49Q4BH0yD4JEWgxK3gjHndmWhCOlTuJCmDP3D3Ei27s98jaCHvWYMCjY2o5N2 Ef59WRO9Lb6YvgdtJ87XPIPz/O3XOH8leQ9heriVaft1i9Hnuqo+aKURvdnu+9jZqy HGQiMUWaWF2gCTGOLFN8W2C8G+yc3zO0gssxa7ZJnPFPCkmkurLX6ElFs2D7RgtlK6 FU3IMIR+6sLTQ== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Pw8pC2cLJz9rxD; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:24:35 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <83sfd7c1v1.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 10 Apr 2023 16:18:10 +0300") Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM 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:259573 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 07:53:52 -0500 >> From: Adam Porter >> >> +++ >> *** New command 'package-update'. >> This command allows you to upgrade packages without using 'M-x >> list-packages'. >> >> +++ >> *** New command 'package-update-all'. >> This command allows updating all packages without any queries. >> >> But, IMHO, these commands should be named 'package-upgrade' and >> 'package-upgrade-all'. > > These commands exist for the last year. I'm not sure how reasonable > it is to rename them now, they are probably used in umpteen places > outside Emacs already. Maybe if we leave behind an alias. > > And what if someone teaches these commands to downgrade as well, at > some future time? > > Does anyone else have an opinion? Lars, Stefan, Philip? I don't think that "update" and "upgrade" have that clear of a semantic difference in practice to necessitate a renaming. E.g. Debian's "apt" distinguishes between updating (ie. synchronising the local repository state) and upgrading (fetching and installing newer versions of a package), while Fedora's dnf bundles both into one step and refers to it as updating. The term "update" probably has a minor edge over "upgrade" since it is a more popular term, that users are more likely to search for.