From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs-29 9b775ddc057 1/2: ; * etc/EGLOT-NEWS: Fix wording of last change. Date: Sat, 6 May 2023 22:15:49 +0300 Message-ID: References: <168335548287.8529.4912240840977468283@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20230506064443.56C75C22F15@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <59835735-faa0-4096-e491-35ec92964b7a@gutov.dev> <831qjthhm8.fsf@gnu.org> <715cdac6-83f6-6907-2ff8-3b33381f3487@gutov.dev> <83zg6hg29c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ttwpfvcr.fsf@gnu.org> <83h6spfose.fsf@gnu.org> <35df1362-fd92-9424-97d0-df3479414677@gutov.dev> <83edntfm6e.fsf@gnu.org> <871qjti9kc.fsf@posteo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="11753"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Cc: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Philip Kaludercic , Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat May 06 21:16:30 2023 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 1pvNOO-0002r0-My for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 06 May 2023 21:16:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pvNNt-000788-QR; Sat, 06 May 2023 15:15:57 -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 1pvNNq-00077v-JZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 May 2023 15:15:54 -0400 Original-Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pvNNp-0000SS-5B; Sat, 06 May 2023 15:15:54 -0400 Original-Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 507C35C0236; Sat, 6 May 2023 15:15:52 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 06 May 2023 15:15:52 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1683400552; x=1683486952; bh=l6CCthYa/WFSzC0hNSm8SWwTzJzStj9QANy /jgpYp/0=; b=goX7kIcYBkGLJOm2/Kh0TYRCBQ6GV022NT3BSsQ5VZ4eDkKabEK 5N84ObYSuPOIDK7OkXD28fAtSBJzjB+YRyFj3p9rys+H47oSPiHMzhFUxKCDQvq+ nPSaq/ZeddKu0vCc1ANa7WPRh9Ede6TcnWAjjkXjfBTszQ/MZ9+yZzp4VCb3Y/0V X+wQ5QUxogr51+H8tZ+iLpT1ayRviGXegWDj0l3rwrWsogeK7+4ps5MASteBXGXC Ghcm1+iKCM6yxxWOajD2OB0gszedOkTBcFLjMFdK/IvcScIIE69D47u2BqituVQ7 RDMjTFZtlsbvzpNjQ/olfuz5LzERXV0nITw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1683400552; x=1683486952; bh=l6CCthYa/WFSzC0hNSm8SWwTzJzStj9QANy /jgpYp/0=; b=Xq3jdyBzVlbJ2F8QjZmypwL0c5wU3rO940NObkhOW8/mQ5iTlkV fsVvQWcDYxO2ZfreQWcWDRM8fQUBpmMbLY03mbSnwnkYpQ/B7Thot0Uqfi8FEicJ Jg4wKfkMJCjtbtisbx7dOnMBzD9XC9/UibAxam9h3VAJwRWElKgqxx8gwBw5mJqa fUtYvRc9z8SjQU/fNS12sJCQwKh5lj0MdtRKP/yPiT4Rju6hWJ6CaI2us5Im67Ul GKHA1L+gXWfhduxiizvwYT/OWxM/CX7+stPdGAfS60b6UouKv/iYVYb/0FmAP2qV fBqjv5ZxwCOwlh9u+f6krkoYVAqbmZZHa3A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfeefgedguddufecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfevfhfhjggtgfesthejredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepffhm ihhtrhihucfiuhhtohhvuceoughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghvqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpeeigfetveehveevffehledtueekieeikeeufeegudfgfeeghfdulefgfeev ledvveenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe gumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Original-Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 6 May 2023 15:15:51 -0400 (EDT) Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <871qjti9kc.fsf@posteo.net> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=66.111.4.25; envelope-from=dmitry@gutov.dev; helo=out1-smtp.messagingengine.com X-Spam_score_int: -70 X-Spam_score: -7.1 X-Spam_bar: ------- X-Spam_report: (-7.1 / 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-4.28, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 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:305931 Archived-At: On 06/05/2023 21:44, Philip Kaludercic wrote: >>>> But if emptying ~/.emacs.d/elpa is not a frequent use case, why should >>>> we care about it so much? It sounds like bug#62720 and the entire >>>> long dispute that followed were focused on this strange use pattern, >>>> instead of talking about more reasonable upgrade scenarios? >>> We focused on it because, apparently, using 'M-x package-install' worked >>> in more cases in Emacs 28 than in Emacs 29. And some think it's >>> important. And because 'package-upgrade' is not in Emacs 28 at all. >> If package-upgrade was not in Emacs 28, how did users upgrade >> installed packages in Emacs 28 and before? > They invoked M-x list-packages, waited for the upgrade to appear, > selected them with U and then executed the update with x. This is what > used to work, and what will continue to work. Not for "active built-ins", though.