Re: emacs-29 1ef8b90ae06: Simplify imenu setup for {cmake, dockerfile}-ts-modes

[Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com>]

Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:

> The burden of proof is on the author of the patch, who might be the most
> qualified person to comment on tree-sitter, but certainly not imenu,
> autoloads, or other areas of Emacs no less affected by this change.

? They are not affected by this change though?  Are we looking at the
same patch (commit 1ef8b90a)?

Which areas of Emacs do you think are affected?  AFAICT, nothing risks
breaking outside of the changed modes.  For example, autoloading is not
affected (`declare-function' only affects byte-compilation).

>> If there are any specific technical arguments for why this particular
>> change must not be installed on emacs-29, then let's hear them.  Neither
>> generalizations nor administrative arguments will cut it, I think.
>
> I haven't heard any specific technical arguments as to why this change
> is safe.

Did you read Bug#68706?  Yuan decided to install it as a bugfix on
emacs-29.

The question is if this change is different from the many other bug
fixes that we routinely install without much justification.  This is why
I'm asking for something more specific.

> Rather, I'm the person who is frequently told that such specific
> statements regarding the safety of a large change are "famous last
> words"--which they are, all too often, so I have taken that advice to
> heart.

I don't know which changes this is in reference to, but I know that you
often work on things like X support, that carries with it a bigger risk
for breakage (as it's more complex), and it affects more users to boot.
It is natural to be more careful with changes in core functionality than
in specific modes.

Note also that we have been decided to be more lax when it comes to the
treesitter stuff, seeing as its new in Emacs 29.

>> The above does not necessarily reflect the official line of the project.
>
> ??? I was summarizing what I myself have been told and observed over a
> certain length of time.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough.  I didn't entirely agree with the summary,
because it was too rigid to adequately summarize what I understand to
have been our policy so far.  What's more, the way it was formulated, I
felt like it was open to the misinterpretation that it reflected some
official decision.

I hope it is more clear now what it is that I wanted to clarify.