From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Tree-sitter maturity Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 15:46:49 -0500 Message-ID: <8CE9A18D-79B7-4741-9A7D-6BF90557E456@dancol.org> References: <86ldwdm7xg.fsf@gnu.org> <6765355b.c80a0220.1a6b24.3117SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <00554790-CACA-4233-8846-9E091CF1F7AA@gmail.com> <86msgl2red.fsf@gnu.org> <87o710sr7y.fsf@debian-hx90.lan> <8734i9tmze.fsf@posteo.net> <86plldwb7w.fsf@gnu.org> <87ttapryxr.fsf@posteo.net> <0883EB00-3BB2-4BC8-95D1-45F4497C0526@dancol.org> <87msge8bv8.fsf@dancol.org> <6775a459.170a0220.2f3d1e.1897SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <87h66emqan.fsf@dancol.org> <86ldvqbe5w.fsf@gnu.org> <86bjwmbaoo.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="30215"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android Cc: owinebar@gmail.com, bjorn.bidar@thaodan.de, philipk@posteo.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, manphiz@gmail.com To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 04 21:48:15 2025 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 1tUB4A-0007hN-LB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Jan 2025 21:48:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tUB3b-0006TP-79; Sat, 04 Jan 2025 15:47:39 -0500 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 1tUB3X-0006Su-Vy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Jan 2025 15:47:36 -0500 Original-Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01:e000:3d8::1]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tUB3V-0000TR-OX; Sat, 04 Jan 2025 15:47:35 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Subject:CC:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=9LZ8kvYpfjUg5V1a0kCBlD1DvESR8QtlXkiJXV9givI=; b=GB6UAj8aw5s+jJr0HWiefqP+pH 33Aw5qlGHq+ZnFI4Qa1aEmJMmP9HizfOSWFz8Fond/B4j6W6wcHiV2etynk10U90yXRECjXATfch6 L0phqIKk9qKCUtg0HjXlhKMIJuKHEtrHmmq6opm1T0Mwyvn60tDKJD/Gcv0jllIgm6ZwRlJsIJimX S+O8zjf9XO21MBHTqE6hZbwqQGBjxLB0V5UqrB94YZ6hZpq3xl9nvBGc+fjX8k8EyLwhMjGJShIb4 R8HoHZfJdxhzRXwhThrb4jv9Yhv8bWZcq23ZchTzbtK0FuNpElxj3g14XtQ3dwlFe/vjXKr/1t1sl slHFT5Aw==; Original-Received: from [2600:1006:b11c:64c8:0:11:e407:c001] (port=36350 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1tUB3Q-0006h3-0b; Sat, 04 Jan 2025 15:47:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: <86bjwmbaoo.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2600:3c01:e000:3d8::1; envelope-from=dancol@dancol.org; helo=dancol.org 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, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:327684 Archived-At: On January 4, 2025 3:12:23 PM EST, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 14:30:30 -0500 >> From: Daniel Colascione >> CC: owinebar@gmail=2Ecom, bjorn=2Ebidar@thaodan=2Ede, philipk@posteo=2E= net, >> emacs-devel@gnu=2Eorg, rms@gnu=2Eorg, manphiz@gmail=2Ecom >>=20 >> I think we should vendor even libpng=2E Down with dynamic linking! Seri= ousy=2E > >You are asking the Emacs maintenance team to take up a significant >additional load=2E That's impractical=2E Tying grammars to the code that uses them is less of a burden than adding = hacks upon hacks to try to make Lisp less tightly coupled to grammar change= s from the future=2E >> >This eliminates the need to keep the grammar in our repository (or >> >have it sub-moduled) >>=20 >> And it creates the need to do code distribution in a bespoke way=2E How= is that a net win? > >It's _our_ win=2E The problem is shifted to the distros, where I think >it belongs=2E No, it isn't, because distros *can't* do a good job of this=2E You have to= , for good technical reasons, couple a grammar to a version of Emacs=2E Bes= ides: plenty of people (I'd guess a majority going by how the industry is s= et up) were using Emacs outside the context of a distro=2E If we weren't al= lergic to telemetry, we'd know=2E >> > to say nothing of the legal aspects that are >> >better avoided=2E =20 >>=20 >> Nobody has been able to describe these legal aspects=2E Grammars are fr= ee software=2E GPL compatible, too=2E >> That means we can put them in Emacs=2E That's what software freedom mea= ns=2E > >I did explain that, and don't want to repeat=2E You can consider those >reasons unimportant, but I don't (and cannot, really: I don't call the >shots in this particular game)=2E No, you didn't explain=2E You asserted=2E You said that we would need to get written permission from grammar project= s to include their code in Emacs=2E When I asked where this requirement com= es from, you said it had always been this way and that RMS might have more = information=2E He appears not to=2E That there are legal reasons we can't include third party software in the = Emacs repository is superstition=2E Thousands of other free software projec= ts include third party free code without special permission=2E At best, the= requirement is a hairshirt the project has chosen to wear for no particula= r reason that that it could choose to remove at any time=2E >> > Also don't forget that we have at least two active >> >branches at any given time, and the number of grammar libraries we are >> >interested in is more than a handful=2E So adding them to our >> >repository is a significant addition to the maintenance burden=2E >>=20 >> Vendoring reduces, not increases, the maintenance burden=2E If you're v= endoring or hash locking, when you >> cut a branch, you cut the grammars at the same time=2E If you check in = the grammars or their hashes, this >> snapshotting happens automatically=2E The alternative would be bizarre:= we don't try to combine cc-langs=2Eel >> from master with cc-engine=2Eel from a release branch! > >You are missing the point=2E My point is that several branches means we >need to match a different version of the library to each branch If you check the grammar into the tree, the version in each branch matches= that branch automatically=2E That's what a version control system is=2E It= 's the essence of what it does=2E Same goes for submodules, which are just = checked-in pointers=2E You do strictly less work to branch when something is just a plain file in= that branch than you do when you have some kind of exotic external depende= ncy=2E Can you give me a concrete example of how checking in code burdens branch = maintenance? Your position isn't making any sense to me in context of how v= ersion control systems work=2E >> >> It's just a more complicated and error-prone way of doing the >> >> same thing as checking in the code=2E The same goes for other forms= of >> >> downloading dependencies, e=2Eg=2E via git submodules=2E >> > >> >The difference is that the RI changes=2E And that's not something to >> >ignore, from where I stand=2E >>=20 >> Huh? In what possible way could a bespoke downloader be a better engine= ering choice than submodules? > >I didn't say anything about engineering, I was talking about the >responsibility=2E Good engineering minimizes the number of moving parts and needless failure= points in a system=2E