From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [elpa] main 8f4cb59: * elpa-packages (counsel, ivy, swiper): Auto-sync. Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 16:24:11 +0000 Message-ID: <87mtvsundg.fsf@tcd.ie> References: <20210225102521.11653.64611@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20210225102523.7CEF420B28@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <87h7m0z07r.fsf@tcd.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="33360"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Oleh Krehel To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 25 17:25:13 2021 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 1lFJRv-0008XJ-Ii for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 17:25:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39978 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lFJRu-0008CJ-KH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:25:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33648) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lFJR3-0007L9-C4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:24:17 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wr1-x435.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::435]:33341) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lFJR1-0006l6-EQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:24:17 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wr1-x435.google.com with SMTP id 7so5851298wrz.0 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 08:24:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tcd.ie; s=google21; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=Oo2tNnnudQnu9eyY24a9YBgRxfB3AMm6kv49Z9jLXow=; b=FYrjN111mmRjDy3DMfZpCahpMh7eqgteZxF0PqLOmK710bps6OF/nkE8s8c3rQWT4n srnXLxXfS3nsfcknBbabhHau0e5LePSDIEQYtLnuWv5QtKF3QKCqc9ckNbWm/K5HqlzQ Mb+vRBBQK2Ltgk2qSVyKI+G2l7bPzqSjEXJMCyi3vRVFiEvf9HiGmS5o5+7wQSGdbSf+ 8dbOU0Mm2hCEVYemWtoPsliYZJfEOW1+2rZQBZGVCmUQp2+ykR94k6/uZwYD7R1UhNs8 vkF0YbzqAVbOIpAJu16u7VK9IUQL5Exh/BAfdXrz6nIpialdQTg9YaCHkZPON4eAzliH hq8w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=Oo2tNnnudQnu9eyY24a9YBgRxfB3AMm6kv49Z9jLXow=; b=iKwliGn85fqUXteFSbrpJxGar9yMBE35KbltMtmgck0r9beG01lpNwPxlbt4167Aoy J5cDMPzIHr3sKAjzRZMCSgci8I6Zet07fKFP14cUf5BUEM+XWxtOy6yJT9tBdTIZg8R5 yVmaqE3unsxV2A1KuS0w8GrjvXaCpVXHUcFsjTlAvBr6Gq2MKJv2S9hcJrI8KQWTT8gk KcQdIgLlYmEjubUXUDWZINIe8E5pteIOsv6RHFYbiTIWoGvqEkCEELhaHLF95UjiUN4b xF6hIQwnf7g8bxywjwE77ZztqNmhuMcn0DxJzi/GtbygVK/Pev3JlgZE+sg8amro77Jc ROxQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530DAJLjeRDQicqMTuj0cDtb/SuXjZBXXjCjEDlzPXafCMPPc0LA sng7g1O60h4PUijvUXtbw0gwLA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxkE+Gy1fMGC0bHmeF1VxiGUzPUM12K1UIDunYdcoRHOErIS9iEZC022KsnzH3gofTkWc426A== X-Received: by 2002:adf:f608:: with SMTP id t8mr4449952wrp.196.1614270253450; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 08:24:13 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost ([2a02:8084:20e2:c380:f410:82e8:3a21:eedf]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j125sm8176543wmb.44.2021.02.25.08.24.12 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 25 Feb 2021 08:24:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Thu, 25 Feb 2021 10:12:37 -0500") Received-SPF: none client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::435; envelope-from=contovob@tcd.ie; helo=mail-wr1-x435.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:265631 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: > To me the two best options are: > > - Split the upstream repository so we get one repository per ELPA package. No objections from me, but that's Oleh's call and I think ivy/swiper/counsel are too tightly coupled anyway. > - Get rid of the split between the ELPA packages (so you again get one > ELPA package per repository). This sounds like the path of least resistance for everyone, and I'm in favour of it, but let's see what Oleh thinks. This would involve deleting the other packages, though, right? (Since there would otherwise be multiple different copies of the same files in elpa.git.) Wouldn't users complain? > Another option is to have separate manually-synced branches in the > upstream, one per ELPA package. This is basically the same as what we > have currently, except that the manual syncing is done between the "main" > branch" and the "for-elpa branches" (all within the upstream repository) > rather than between the main branch in the upstream and the elpa > branches in `elpa.git`. To me, it seems to bring no benefit, but > I guess depending on your workflow (and access rights) it could make > a difference. For better or worse I have access rights in both repositories, and I don't mind maintaining these branches in swiper.git. To me, the main benefit of this would be not having to switch between different repositories for development or Git trickery, and then elpa.git would remain more declarative. But ultimately I'm happy to do either. BTW, is it possible/kosher to force-push to external branches in elpa.git? > There's another option, which I dislike and introduces inefficiencies, > which is to make all those packages have the exact same content (so they > all have the same upstream branch and we can fast-forward it) and then > rely on the `:ignored-files` parameter in `elpa-packages` to filter out the > files we don't want in the tarballs. > Downsides: > - A full elpa.git checkout (like the one elpa.gnu.org keeps to build the tarballs, or the > one I keep on my machines to "install in place" all the GNU ELPA packages) > would contain duplicate copies. > - The `:ignored-files` doesn't have any notion of "negation" so you > can't say "ignore all but counsel.el", making those lists of > ignored files annoying to maintain. > - For the "install in place" case, those duplicate copies get > redundantly byte-compiled as well. > - For the "install in place" case, the "ivy.el" file loaded by Emacs > may not be the one I think: instead of `packages/ivy/ivy.el` the > `load-path` may direct Emacs to choose `packages/counsel/ivy.el` > instead (so I'd have to be careful to ask Emacs which file it's using > before I start hacking on it, lest I'd start modifying one file which > turns out not be used, which could lead me to tearing out my hair for > a while). Anything to protect your hair! >> Or maybe adding something like MELPA's ability to specify which exact >> files to consider from the upstream repository? > > That could be added, and could reduce the burden of managing the > `:ignored-filed`, yes. It would be nice to have, but it doesn't address the hair tearing issue, so I won't be bothering with it just yet. Thanks, -- Basil