Re: Possible minibuffer completion enhancements

[Eshel Yaron]

Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes:

> Eshel Yaron <me@eshelyaron.com> writes:
>
>> Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Eshel Yaron <me@eshelyaron.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> In general, I'm happy to upstream anything that seems useful/desirable
>>>> in my working branch, even if I haven't mentioned it here specifically.
>>>
>>> Thanks.  Could I ask that you send patches to us for the changes you
>>> think might be generally useful?
>>
>> Sure, I've just sent one in Bug#68508.
>
> Thank you.  I also saw some doc fixes that might be worth considering,
> and maybe there's more?
>
> It takes extra work to pick out changes in an external branch where your
> changes are mixed in with the ones from the official tree.  So the more
> you can send, the more we are likely to integrate, I think.

Yeah, that makes sense.  There's a small bugfix that I'll try to send
later today, and I'll check the doc fixes to see if they're relevant.

>> Do you feel that any of the minibuffer commands I suggested should be
>> sent for review as well?
>
> I don't use the default completion, but based on their descriptions I
> don't see why we shouldn't want to consider all of them.
>
> If the changes are orthogonal, it might make sense with one bug report
> per patch, otherwise it might make more sense with a feature branch.
>
> It really is whichever makes it easier to test and review the changes,
> and probably you are in a the best position to say what you think about
> that.  Then we'll take it from there.

I think a feature branch could be nice.  The changes are conceptually
orthogonal in the sense that each enhancement can be useful by itself,
but the code changes are not separated as some of them touch the same
areas of minibuffer.el.

I can pick the relevant changes and create a tidy feature branch with
just these new minibuffer commands added on top of master, if that helps.


Eshel