From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juanma Barranquero Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: trunk r115926: In preparation for the move to git, sanitize out some Bazaar-specific names. Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 13:48:39 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20140109000406.GA22775@thyrsus.com> <87mwj6f23d.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <20140109002754.GA22950@thyrsus.com> <20140109012554.GA23333@thyrsus.com> <20140109052705.GA3424@thyrsus.com> <20140109123702.GB5361@thyrsus.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1389271814 27507 80.91.229.3 (9 Jan 2014 12:50:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:50:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Bastien , Emacs developers To: Eric Raymond Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 09 13:50:20 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W1F3x-00024b-4y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 13:50:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51670 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W1F3u-0007lz-9Q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 07:50:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50388) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W1F3m-0007jS-Cs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 07:50:11 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W1F3h-0001SS-7e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 07:50:06 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ea0-f172.google.com ([209.85.215.172]:38400) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W1F3b-0001Qy-8d; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 07:49:55 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-ea0-f172.google.com with SMTP id q10so1195331ead.17 for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 04:49:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=CzqUIyceItLU6o8JIxF86/X6Df3Gc2DNugDL1Nc5nkI=; b=0LQ6K7lS6tz0hYvDO6LD1KiIXLJTFRAAM3Oyn5A8dOCLf4EJIPfm8vp/gI9u6V9GWB lAdnHZV4Y4O6xBQVFnYGLUX/2Jf2UNADDmey12AudJIKCmA39R8JpMhUwtsQHIoZAenY FQqG8Rrm7Q5e49EvJOm6+CvdJlu3PDKt88aixHMoG/gJQ0MJam8TguXBBauX9kS9P0/X 2SOIonEW2lVOqFBsQJ2aR21NW/XSmMiMhC77SKhZ3wXYvDgfumtzr6DYM13vy3q8+ql1 JuX+2zZ9Cqrx0KeNbdSqXBqKHWbKcqEPq7JT5RMdNA9AcQc1WU5k0fMDtUBr3LH6HHa0 w/uA== X-Received: by 10.15.53.200 with SMTP id r48mr2854261eew.111.1389271759223; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 04:49:19 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.14.209.69 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 04:48:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140109123702.GB5361@thyrsus.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.215.172 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:167897 Archived-At: On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > I must be missing something. I don't see how this would solve any problem > at all. It's no different of any other change that obsoletes a variable. Old code uses it, even if there's newer code with improved features. > I don't understand why simply looking at emacs-bzr-version isn't working > for you, given that it's now aliased. It is working (at least, the part that does not call emacs-bzr-get-version, which does not exist anymore). I'm saying that my previous suggestion of defining an obsolete alias is wrong, because the old and the new variables are NOT compatible. > What would (emacs-bug) look at under this plan? If your answer is > emacs-bzr-version, I strongly object. Currently? emacs-bzr-version. After the switch? Whatever you want. > The fact that the VCS name > was exposed at that level was a *bug*, a layering violation (and I would > say the same thing if the name had been emacs-git-version). Nothing > in Lisp outside version.el has need to know that and therefore > should not know it. That it is a layering violation is a matter of opinion. That is was documented as having a specific structure is a fact, and that at least one person in the universe (though perhaps more, as it has been available since 24.3, almost a year ago) is using it, is another fact. These aren't up for discussion. I understand that you feel strongly about how that API should be, and I'm not opposing your changes in the future. But I don't accept that you have the right to rewrite the past and just *remove* a published API because you think it is wrong (*even* if you're right) when we have a perfectly clear mechanism to deal with such situations, named obsolescence. > I don't see any win at all in this reversion. And because doing it would > reintroduce a layering violation, I'm going to need a lot of convincing. Why should I have to convince you that you shouldn't remove published APIs? I don't want to turn this into a silly commit battle, but if you don't fix it in a compatible way, I will. I'm only asking that your changes for the future (need I to remind you that we're still using Bazaar?) do not break anything that does not *need* to be broken. J