Subject: Re: bug#58790: Eglot URI parsing bug when using clojure-lsp server

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022 10:30:25 +0200

> From: João Távora <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 21:59:37 +0000
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked], 
> 	[email-masked], [email-masked]
> 
> But when dealing with eglot.el, which I am the prime maintainer of, 
> I really prefer to see design described in the commit message where the 
> design was introduced. It plays very well with vc-region-history.

This is not the design, these are comments that explain why the code
does what it does the way it does that.  IOW, these are implementation
notes aimed at making the code more self-explanatory and easier to
maintain.

It is quite possible that you personally don't need these additional
comments because you are very familiar with the code and with LSP
servers in general.  But future Emacs developers and maintainers might
not have such insight, and I'm trying to represent them.  This is part
of my job and my responsibility.  And since comments can never
adversely affect code, I see no reason for you to object.

vc-region-history is a very useful command, but in my book the code
should explain itself; vc-region-history is for when one wants to
understand the reasons for a change, not when one wants to study the
code as a whole.

I'm not objected to having the explanations in the commit log
messages, but why would you object to having them in the code, even if
the commit log already says that?  That way everyone wins.