From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jim Porter Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Stability of core packages (was: Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:35:15 -0700 Message-ID: References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt337mck.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="14217"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: arne_bab@web.de, joaotavora@gmail.com, dmitry@gutov.dev, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 19 21:35:41 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 1ppDaf-0003QL-53 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 21:35:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppDaN-0003ZF-JI; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 15:35:23 -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 1ppDaL-0003WJ-Kn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 15:35:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pg1-x531.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::531]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppDaI-0002GX-LL; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 15:35:21 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-pg1-x531.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-51b6d0b9430so98770a12.2; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:35:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681932916; x=1684524916; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:mime-version:date:message-id:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=dMnxw3LwAblz0Gpgqz/zYu8PqFYbe+RZ7NqN7ZngmuE=; b=mpI5oE6JnqWUOiCyvQeAg5TT2L83UsWAlJaNkSsyPIRAui5y9e9kZpyfM2i0j6sfTJ k+YITgEfuVvvCW0dovr+iPQ7Vx/1ATuleLBZnx6nlyxX0IwpmLBnHgxaKn8iz0dVP3ih pPjTSOQCjYaYE4cFTCGRZSZIY5uMWNMCA7/z+9+B45FG2BlMfFuQrPJLK3uTSS/UGSFc 6EwCasLG4E4GmSOQ3cZWTpDGc/kfYWeQBxMkmBOnRckti5b9OeASxW15Va2f2akQxTso KZ5JMZJ115CxXU7njQszaRaI+CuOwAIHEmY/V63uVqyR0vUh9UuAde9pFEMqzm6mC2Gg EiZw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681932916; x=1684524916; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=dMnxw3LwAblz0Gpgqz/zYu8PqFYbe+RZ7NqN7ZngmuE=; b=h+YLts1c42AVWY4wqsggiD+CX3qI1uvU/CIi7jiNNKfX7Wurz7n5i+Xk8Cl6+ARfhi Z7L6Pl6Bgjcnbh5BWHqmmS66ICCynVI2w9jA3ewJhChVrzGBkrLqe6EZ040j3o4KPdpV JnokgpOepnqopoeufG1ISTYaiPvGsifG45uxZROW+nFUoYO91dET6DB7+qnfyeGLbOG0 szsIOqc4EboYAl+uiQmIiFrui54yLMKjEm/b28hyiaQpnnNpbRCiwv/py3uB+RU/P0B6 nF0MlqomTNFPPPOSkj7O93+2JDPzUiX6XA8d+ygehN4hiwTgIE8eU8/pdV2ER07FgY0G s96A== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9ckvErtBdJVEZZrdZtwZBo4wD0Avh2kwOvbf/HEm+z1LQP8bjBh pi7ZyfGPKsEg/VYJSkhKvbEgxYbvyekQyw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350aeTIS9UAYjVqTPYJYQ5mzuIi03fxhjBen431iePwZHr7lo+jUiIpNPxbWncjVGwc0mNSoRKw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:8005:b0:249:89a2:5800 with SMTP id b5-20020a17090a800500b0024989a25800mr2671465pjn.9.1681932916709; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:35:16 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.2] (cpe-76-168-148-233.socal.res.rr.com. [76.168.148.233]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id x15-20020a17090a46cf00b00247164c1947sm2151043pjg.0.2023.04.19.12.35.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:35:16 -0700 (PDT) Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <83mt337mck.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::531; envelope-from=jporterbugs@gmail.com; helo=mail-pg1-x531.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -10 X-Spam_score: -1.1 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.1 / 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=no 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:305460 Archived-At: On 4/19/2023 11:34 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:04:50 -0700 >> Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, dmitry@gutov.dev, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> From: Jim Porter >> >> 1. Add gnu-devel to 'package-archives' (this way, I can be sure there's >> a newer Eglot to upgrade to in one of the archives) >> 2. M-x list-packages >> 3. U ;; package-menu-mark-upgrades >> 4. x ;; package-menu-execute >> >> When Emacs tells me what packages it will upgrade, Eglot is in the list. >> However, ERC (which is in ELPA, but I didn't install via package.el) is >> *not* in the list. Isn't this the behavior we want?[1] > > AFAIU, this is not the scenario that João was bothered about. But I > let him respond. > > But if this is the scenario, then there's no problem, AFAIU what you > are saying. So what exactly would you like to add to this discussion? Two main things (once I hear back from João to confirm): 1) If there are any package-upgrade actions that *don't* work in the way I described, we should fix them, using the behavior of 'package-menu-mark-upgrades' for guidance. As far as I can tell, that's the behavior everyone wants, but there could be other scenarios where it does something else. 2) More-generally, there's the question of "stability gradations". Elsewhere, you suggested listing these in the *Packages* buffer with values like "alpha", "current", "stable", etc. We can already do something similar to this with additional package archives (e.g. GNU ELPA vs GNU-devel ELPA). However, package.el doesn't automatically keep track of which channel you used to install a package, so you have to go through a fair amount of extra effort to pin your packages to particular release channels. I think (1) is the immediate concern though, and it might be best to have a resolution for that before going too far into general solutions like (2).