GNU bug report logs - #37774
27.0.50; new :extend attribute broke visuals of all themes and other packages

Previous Next

Full log

Message #272 received at 37774 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 37774 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#37774: 27.0.50; new :extend attribute broke visuals of all
 themes and other packages
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 23:28:50 +0300

On 23.10.2019 21:04, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>>> AFAIU, that's a list of faces one particular user decided to customize
>>> to have them extended.  It's a far cry from the list of faces that
>>> actually need to be extended, lest some important functionality will
>>> suffer.  IOW, we need some rationale for each face, so that we could
>>> consider that and decide whether or not to extend each one by default.
>>
>> Magit's maintainer will decide for each face, sure.
> 
> I don't mind if package maintainers want to make that decision by
> themselves, but if that is the case, I don't think there's anything
> left to do for this bug report?  I though some action will be required
> from us, that's why I asked all those questions.

We should define and document a "migration path", e.g. say what a 
package author should do if they have a face which needs to be extended, 
preferably without breaking compatibility with Emacs 26.

>> But I don't really see much a difference between having 2 and 20 faces
>> that will need to be updated, if it's within one package.
> 
> It's a difference between a small number and a very large number.
> Theoretically, someone could argue that a change that requires to
> modify lots of faces shouldn't be so unconditional, or shouldn't be
> the default, or should have a "fire escape", or something to that
> effect.  But if people don't mind changing their faces, then such
> fears have no basis, and we are good with what we have.

A "fire escape" would depend on a user's config, right? I don't like the 
sound of that approach, personally.

>> Even if it's just 2, do we have a recommended way to write their
>> definitions in third-party packages in a way that's compatible with
>> Emacs 26?
> 
> The best way is to inherit from some suitable parent face, I think.

A lot of face don't inherit from anything on purpose. Anyway, I've 
pinged Magit's maintainer, let's see what he says.

>>> If too many faces in unbundled packages indeed need to change in that
>>> way, we should consider additional measures.  That's why we need good
>>> reasons for extending each face, not just "because they were before"
>>> or because people were used to see them extended.
>>
>> Those are not the worst reasons, though.
> 
> Not sure I understand in what sens did you use "the worst" here.

"People were used to ..." is basically 99% of the arguments that were 
given in all past discussions for not changing defaults to be more 
"modern" or whatever. And there's some merit to that.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.