Re: Stability of core packages (was: Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot)

[João Távora]

On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 10:38 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> > It is what they want, by definition, this is why I named it
> > "safely-upgradeable-builtins".  These are the users:
> >
> >   Specifically, users of Emacs 28 and older, who had Eglot installed,
> >   and expect Eglot to be automatically updated upon Emacs startup
> >   whenever a new Eglot version is available, will now have their
> >   expectations broken after they upgrade to Emacs 29, because Eglot is
> >   now a built-in package, and package.el won't by default upgrade a
> >   built-in package.
> >
> > Recognize this writing? It is yours!
>
> Yes.  Of course, you conveniently omitted the next paragraph I wrote,
> which described a different group of users, whose expectations would
> be broken by the changes you proposed.  That was also "my writing".

The code I'm trying to write should appease both.  But you should
help characterize these users.

> > > You assume that everyone will
> > > want Eglot and use-package automatically updated, but this assumption
> > > has no real basis.
> >
> > First, of course it has real statistical basis! Didn't I send you
> > links to tens and tens of issues were users reported their configurations
> > and one can actually see what users are doing to install Eglot?
>
> Since when "tens" and "everyone" are the same thing?

Come on, you know that "everyone" is impossible to prove.  Aren't tens
(actually hundreds, I think) a good data point.  Can you show even
one issue where someone was surprised/harmed by furtive unintented
updates of dependencies?

> > Secondly, it has the theoretical basis of what you wrote yourself
> > barely 1 hour ago!  It shows you understand the problem that is
> > new in Emacs 29.
>
> Of course, I understand the problem.  But understanding the problem
> doesn't mean agreement with the solutions you propose, or any other
> solution, for that matter.  An acceptable solution should solve the
> problem without causing other problems, and in this case it also must
> solve the problem in a safe enough manner to be eligible for Emacs
> 29.1.

And that's what I'm looking for.

> > Using your language, we want to not "break those user's expectations".
> > if we can.  And we can, if you want to.  You want to, right? You want to
> > break as few user's expectations as possible, ideally 0.
> >
> > And the code does exactly that! It avoids bothering that set of
> > users while also avoiding bothering the other set of users that
> > you mentioned.
> >
> > And, for good measure, the set of users who had Eglot installed
> > and expect Eglot NOT to be updated when package-install is found
> > is the empty set.  Surely this is evident.
> >
> > So there's no "dilemma".  There is rather some kind of spectacular
> > misunderstanding here.  There has to be, because I'm drawing these
> > conclusions from nothing more than elementary facts from set theory
>
> It is clear that you like the solution you proposed, and see no
> problems with it.  But I disagree, and at this point I have explained
> my disagreement enough times.

No you haven't, sorry.  You've not said "João, if your patch goes in,
at least user X will have this specific problem Y when she does Z, and
I think Y is bad because reasons".  Dmitry is doing that, critiquing
actual code.  I don't think that's time wasted: it's the only way the
discussion can advance.

João