Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot

From: João Távora <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2023 11:23:08 +0100

Kévin Le Gouguec <[email-masked]> writes:

> João Távora <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>>>   between Eli & Philip re. changing package-install or package-update
>>>   makes me unsure what "U x" will actually do with eglot in Emacs 29, so
>>>   my previous parenthesized digression might be moot.
>>
>> Alas U x in the package menu _also_ doesn't upgrade Eglot.  And neither
>> does M-x package-update-all.  I don't see any plans for doing so.
>
> Interesting; thank you and Dmitry for confirming my impression.
>
> This was perhaps the most surprising aspect of the equation IMO,
> although now it does not sound so bad since, IIUC from reading
> package.el, _once_ users manage to install eglot from ELPA (using
> Philip's pending user option), _then_ either method should let them
> fetch future upgrades transparently.

Yes, there are two sides to this question.

- User friendliness to interactive commands.  I think it's not very user
  friendly to do one behaviour in Emacs 28 and another in 29 and again
  another in 30.  But I've abandoned this battle.  When doing things
  interactively, users are more likely to ask themselves why and search
  for answers.  So the solution is not that bad.

- Non-interactive installations, such as the ones you get when trying
  someone's init files, setting up new systems after upgrade, CI system
  scripts etc.  Those will be broken, silently or violently, and the
  root cause will be much harder to find.  

  For example, a user enjoying, say, the bug fix to
  https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/discussions/1206 in Emacs 28 with
  a simple (use-package eglot :ensure t) in her config, will suddenly
  see the bug pop up again in Emacs 29.  The same with a user enjoying
  the no-flooding-echo-area bugfix feature, which depended on changes to
  both Eglot and Eldoc.  The same for a user enjoying the new
  eglot-prefer-plaintext feature for bug#61373.

It's the second problem which is more serious IMO, and it's inevitable
it will keep geting worse.

João