From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: joakim@verona.se Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: using libmagic in Emacs? Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:57:50 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87praszybe.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <838whgik6y.fsf@gnu.org> <87prardif2.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1250697504 32284 80.91.229.12 (19 Aug 2009 15:58:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:58:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Chong Yidong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 19 17:58:16 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MdnYD-0003zR-2S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:58:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53628 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MdnYC-0001Vq-2k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:58:12 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MdnY5-0001Vl-EG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:58:05 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MdnXz-0001Ua-36 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:58:03 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47816 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MdnXy-0001UX-Us for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:57:58 -0400 Original-Received: from proxy3.bredband.net ([195.54.101.73]:42680) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MdnXv-0003zG-7M; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:57:55 -0400 Original-Received: from iph1.telenor.se (195.54.127.132) by proxy3.bredband.net (7.3.140.3) id 49F597CD02E4B265; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:57:53 +0200 X-SMTPAUTH-B2: joakvero X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhhmAKu9i0pT44qWPGdsb2JhbACKFpBtAQEBATeqaQiRIoJGCIFMBQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,409,1246831200"; d="scan'208";a="37626136" Original-Received: from ua-83-227-138-150.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se (HELO exodia) ([83.227.138.150]) by iph1.telenor.se with ESMTP; 19 Aug 2009 17:57:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost.localdomain (DIR-655.lan [192.168.200.113]) (authenticated bits=0) by exodia (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7JFvoX2001574 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:57:51 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87prardif2.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> (Chong Yidong's message of "Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:47:45 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:114408 Archived-At: Chong Yidong writes: > Stefan Monnier writes: > >>> I thought only relatively minor and safe ones, >>> but this one seems to break that rule, at least in my book. >> >> It looks pretty safe: the first step is to add the Lisp API, which >> should not impact any other code (tho it may cause temporary build >> failures, I guess). After that, set-auto-mode (and/or image.el, ...) >> will need to be tweaked to also take libmagic into account >> when available. This should also be fairly simple. > > I don't think that sounds simple or safe; however, there's not enough > information to know for sure, until Joakim posts the patch. > >>> Maybe we should simply decide right here and now that Emacs 23.2 will >>> be delivered from the RC branch, and open the trunk for all changes, >>> even not-so-safe ones? >> >> Yes, that's pretty much where we're at, I think, yes. > > Actually, if people want to start including more intrusive changes, I > think we should cut a new branch from the current trunk. This would > postphone the CEDET merge to 23.3. Please dont postpone CEDET on my behalf! That would feel terrible. -- Joakim Verona