From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zimoun Subject: Re: branch master updated (0aa0e1f -> 9b7f9e6) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:00:41 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20200224101817.20439.52918@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <87blpom285.fsf@gnu.org> <87v9nvg1wf.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42822) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j6Mif-0003mR-Tb for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 18:00:59 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j6Mie-0008K4-GO for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 18:00:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87v9nvg1wf.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: Guix Devel Hi Ludo, On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 21:34, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > >> Forgive me if I missed the discussion, but I thought we had reached > >> rough consensus in favor of the status quo. What happened? > > > > I do not know if we had reached a consensus. :-) > > More accurately, I think there was no consensus around the proposed Ah sorry, I have not read "rough consensus in favor of the status quo" as meaning "no consensus" (what I was suggesting :-)). > changes. Ricardo and I argued in favor of honoring =E2=80=98INSIDE_EMACS= =E2=80=99 and > disabling colors when it is set. I disagree, that's why the consensus is not reached. As I explained elsewhere, there is different issues and Emacs is not the main part of the story. > In terms of process, I think it=E2=80=99s a case where we should make sur= e the > people involved in the discussion can come to an agreement before going > further (info "(guix) Commit Access"). I agree. The small diff that I sent here [1] is not even a commit but a fix that I shared because I was annoyed by the current behaviour. Speaking about process, I commented one patch [2] but all the comments are not included (e.g., '(when (not' is ugly and should be replaced by 'unless' as you suggested [3]). But again, speaking about process, the patches have been announced on guix-devel [4] in the relative thread. [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-02/msg00034.html [2] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D39642#17 [3] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-02/msg00353.html [4] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-02/msg00215.html > > The other issue is "that the OSC is not always supported and some > > terminal emulators are not doing the correct thing. For example EShell > > or (incorrectly build) Mate of Trisquel. Therefore, instead of > > displaying this special character, just print the full path of the > > generation file and the commit url." [5]. And this is not related to > > Emacs and/or INSIDE_EMACS but related to the support of the OSC by the > > terminal emulator. And the highlighting is another topic. > > As I wrote elsewhere, we avoid working around terminal bugs in Guix > itself. In this case, the bugs are in an old VTE version and about to > be fixed in Eshell, both of which are good reasons not to try to paper > over it in Guix. I disagree. Not about the terminal bugs and where they have to be fixed, I obviously agree on that. I disagree on displaying the hyperlink in plain text. I am using xterm and it does the correct thing about OSC and coloring. But I was not aware that 'Generation' and 'commit' were hyperlinks and I was suggesting a rename to NO_SUPPORT_HYPERLINK here [5], "long" before the patches. :-) [5] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D38940#29 > > Well, from my understanding, the question was about the name of this > > variable "INSIDE_EMACS" to replace the OSC by the full path and > > how/where to document it, see Pierre's message [6] but then Ricardo > > answered [7]: "we should not document it in Guix, nor should we rename > > it to GUIX_INSIDE_EMACS". > > > > Maybe the misunderstanding comes from there. > > I see reluctance to the proposed changes in > (I > agree with Ricardo=E2=80=99s concerns). I disagree because the answer is only about Emacs. My concern was about enabling/disabling OSC/coloring for any terminal emulator. That's why I suggested NO_SUPPORT_HYPERLINK or whatever else name. > To me, that suggests at least that further discussion would have been > needed before pushing these three commits. I agree. > What should we do now? I am fine with reverting for more discussions and/or polishing. Cheers, simon