From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andrew Hyatt Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: A proposal for removing obsolete packages Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:25:13 -0500 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1452576339 6690 80.91.229.3 (12 Jan 2016 05:25:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 05:25:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Richard Stallman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 12 06:25:35 2016 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 1aIrSY-0005c4-6d for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 06:25:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58205 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aIrSX-0000if-8B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:25:33 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50189) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aIrSK-0000iW-WB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:25:21 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aIrSH-0004eh-06 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:25:20 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-qg0-x229.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c04::229]:34632) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aIrSG-0004dt-RN; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:25:16 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-qg0-x229.google.com with SMTP id 6so342524455qgy.1; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:25:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=SIixqWtj+bcYTKQ1DPMYJQ0nKJHgmr0YRdx7tuOsYhM=; b=tVVEw7X5Gcfq76Ab86BbqNLEcPoRT6Qtcj4p5mnF5juEC2/mLzHUEwWb40Duth9+Yc Y6vjsotxcMeneMoyIEFDt9vzN5VBSshEWzITQeVNf8UkqPHY4nYV4icFWScK1YWxSapj b8xUKQYiUPnVfLCr2MvFf/267BcZXYqjyTKRqcZvPs3QzLUXQulca/hopft+Pyk1IgN5 BSnXBS74wMGRHeeJA1cTd3f5TgRoDhRxbHcZDwH8C1fjG+oTvb1HBQ0OsWorCUM2whn0 6FCeG4ZgOGFcYBODggPNhEnkxjGO49+4ZTbcyKq964hD7ARIt75kC3WGUHRoeK/i8/UI hd0w== X-Received: by 10.140.135.16 with SMTP id 16mr142939950qhh.79.1452576316146; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:25:16 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from Andrews-MacBook-Pro.local.ahyatt-laptop (cpe-74-73-128-199.nyc.res.rr.com. [74.73.128.199]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h99sm38863154qge.7.2016.01.11.21.25.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:25:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Mon, 11 Jan 2016 23:07:52 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (darwin) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400d:c04::229 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:198065 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > > For example, a package that is declared obsolete during the development > > of Emacs 25 would be moved to obsolete, and a message would be added to > > say that " is obsolete and will be removed in Emacs 27". It > > couldn't be removed in Emacs 26 because it didn't start Emacs 25 in > > obsolete. > > I agree. But we should not be rigit about deleting it in Emacs 27, > either. Depending on how the feature is used, we might want to save > it longer. Features used in Lisp code may need to remain longer. Could we instead not move things into obsolete if we didn't think they were removable? Also, can you give an example of something that is obsolete but shouldn't be removed? That might help me understand your concern.