Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> >> Cc: jostein@secure.kjonigsen.net, casouri@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, >> theo@thornhill.no, jostein@kjonigsen.net >> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2022 10:46:41 +0000 >> >> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> >> > From where I stand, it makes very little sense to release Emacs 29 >> > with tree-sitter support that is limited to primitives and some >> > minimal Lisp glue on top of that. Tree-sitter was added to Emacs to >> > allow major modes provide better support for editing program source >> > code, so having tree-sitter "support" in Emacs 29 that didn't include >> > at least several major modes using it would be disappointing at best. >> > It would mean we ourselves have no idea how to make major modes use >> > the feature. Moreover, adding those few major modes on the branch >> > exposed several deficiencies in the original design and >> > implementation, and required changes to make the integration better; >> > releasing Emacs 29 with those issues unresolved (and unknown) would >> > require significant, sometimes incompatible changes in the future, >> > which is another reason why it would be wrong. >> > >> > Basically, my firm belief is that adding to Emacs infrastructure >> > without user-level applications built on that infrastructure is wrong >> > and runs the risk of producing features that are not used or need deep >> > surgery before they become useful. We should avoid doing that as much >> > as possible. >> >> My question is, do these user-level applications have to be distributed >> along with Emacs, or could they be made to be "explicitly" opt-in by >> installing them from ELPA. > > It depends, the decision should be on a case by case basis, IMO. For > functionality that is part of what we want Emacs to have, yes, it > should be distributed with Emacs. > >> In-core appears to usually bring a commitment to maintain a library, >> and deprecating can take years. If Emacs 29 lays the technical >> foundations, the low-level API for treesitter to work, we can have >> packages on ELPA experiment with the higher-level abstractions. >> Whatever is the most successful approach, can be added to Emacs >> later on. > > Emacs cannot come without support for important programming languages, > that would make no sense. If we want to move towards tree-sitter as > the basis for some aspects of such major modes, we must have this in > core. Having such important parts of Emacs in ELPA when we don't have > a way of bundling ELPA packages with an Emacs release tarball means a > deficiency in released versions of Emacs, so we should not go that > way. > > I don't see why what was done on the branch with introducing > tree-sitter capabilities into major modes should be considered > "experiments", let alone not "successful". What parts of that > concretely do you think belong to these categories, and why? > > More generally, why should we be afraid of including new stuff in > Emacs, and instead designate it "experimental" and put it on ELPA? We > never did that in the past, and I don't see why would we want that now > or in the future. ELPA is not a platform for "experiments" in Emacs > development; the master branch and the feature branches are that > platform. > >> >> As an aside: This might also be a good opportunity to clean up some of >> >> the current major mode implementations and make them more consistent. >> >> The issue with custom options to enable tree-sitter for every major mode >> >> has revealed an inherent duplication of features. There are other >> >> inconsistencies, especially regarding bindings for equivalent operations >> >> (e.g. in interpreted language with a repl, how to load function into the >> >> current session: Lisp, Prolog, Python all differ in minor details). >> > >> > Cleaning up major modes is a Good Thing that needs no opportunities. >> > We should do that whenever we know and agree how. >> >> Fair enough, but just as above I think these kinds of experiments are >> better made outside of the core, in ELPA, to avoid committing to >> mistakes. If it works out, it can be added. > > No, we should do that on feature branches, not on ELPA. Certainly so > for changes that require changes on the C level. > > Again, ELPA is not a place where we should develop Emacs. > >> >> The current branch has major modes, should these be deleted before >> >> merging? >> > >> > Definitely not! These modes are there because we want Emacs 29 to >> > have them, and we want users to use them and report back. >> >> IIUC these modes aren't ripe yet, or at least aren't satisfying >> replacements for the existing modes. > > What concretely isn't ripe? Jostein said: Me and Theodor faced these same issues with "our" C# and TypeScript major-modes, and the only "clean" way we agreed we could make this work was to create wholly new implementations. I can come up with many good, objective reasons for this, but I think Theodor has already represented this view fairly well. > And please note that Emacs 29 won't be released tomorrow or the next > week. We have the whole release cycle ahead of us to figure out what > is not yet ripe for a release and either fix that or (in extreme > cases) remove that from Emacs. I see no reason to make these > decisions today. We used the feature branch for initial shakeup and > stabilization, and we now think the tree-sitter support is mature > enough to let more people use it and provide their feedback. Naturally, I didn't understand this to be a discussion on an immediate decision. >> If tree-sitter were not to be merged for that reason, that would >> delay the ability to use tree-sitter on a widespread basis for at >> least another release. My proposal above would make it possible, >> and encourage users to report on their experience, while allowing >> for the flexibility to make the right decisions in the long term. > > If that was your reasoning, then I think you are three steps ahead of > where we are, and you are trying to find solutions for problems that > don't necessarily exist. We should see what concrete problems are > left after the merge, and take it from there. We have ample time for > figuring that out and fixing whatever will need fixing. You are right, I'll have to test the branch more seriously.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4