GNU bug report logs - #65245
Possible code removal in eshell/diff (em-unix.el)

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 65245 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 65245 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Richard Hopkins <emacs <at> unbit.co.uk>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Possible code removal in eshell/diff (em-unix.el)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2023 11:49:56 +0100

Hi,
I think the use of `compilation-finish-functions' and
#'current-window-configuration can be removed from #'eshell/diff
as it's no longer called and the intended functionality is achieved
elsewhere.

For example the below works with/without the 
`compilation-finish-functions'.

  $ emacs -Q -f eshell
  # in the eshell buffer
  echo a > a
  echo b > b
  diff -u a b
  # pops a #'diff-mode window with font-lock enabled; press q to quit

Here are some commits showing the introduction and then others
that help make it no longer relevant.

2001-04-24 ef59cfc6638a8ac3fccbee88482d142e95c32f81
	   Use `compilation-finish-functions' in #'eshell/diff

2004-02-02 c010ecfa9a26549486bb00c39221813c02c615de
           Bind q to #'quit-window in `diff-mode-shared-map'

2004-02-11 540d066630c55ab957dc08aa7abbca7775c9bd7b
	   #'diff - don't use compile any more, use diff-mode instead.

2011-02-01 abef340a0c5304054a2a5e6d95e1d825501f0e7a
	   `diff-mode-shared-map' inherit from `special-mode-map'

Best,
Richard

Message #8 received at 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: emacs <at> unbit.co.uk
Cc: 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#65245: Possible code removal in eshell/diff (em-unix.el)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2023 15:18:29 +0200

close 65245 30.1
thanks

Richard Hopkins <emacs <at> unbit.co.uk> writes:

> I think the use of `compilation-finish-functions' and
> #'current-window-configuration can be removed from #'eshell/diff
> as it's no longer called and the intended functionality is achieved
> elsewhere.

I think your analysis is correct and it holds up in my testing.  I
have therefore removed that part on master along with associated
cleanups.

Thanks for the bug report.

Message #13 received at 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>, Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
Cc: emacs <at> unbit.co.uk, 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#65245: Possible code removal in eshell/diff (em-unix.el)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2023 16:33:30 +0300

> Cc: 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2023 15:18:29 +0200
> 
> Richard Hopkins <emacs <at> unbit.co.uk> writes:
> 
> > I think the use of `compilation-finish-functions' and
> > #'current-window-configuration can be removed from #'eshell/diff
> > as it's no longer called and the intended functionality is achieved
> > elsewhere.
> 
> I think your analysis is correct and it holds up in my testing.  I
> have therefore removed that part on master along with associated
> cleanups.

It would have been prudent to wait for the Eshell maintainer to chime
in, before rushing with the removal.  The suggestion for removal was
posted just one day ago, and that is not long enough to assume the
maintainer is not available.

Jim, any comments on this matter?

Message #16 received at 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: emacs <at> unbit.co.uk, Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>,
 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#65245: Possible code removal in eshell/diff (em-unix.el)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2023 18:49:20 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

> It would have been prudent to wait for the Eshell maintainer

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind for next time.  Kudos to Jim for taking
on the work of maintaining eshell!

Message #19 received at 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: emacs <at> unbit.co.uk, 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#65245: Possible code removal in eshell/diff (em-unix.el)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2023 10:32:34 -0700

On 8/13/2023 9:49 AM, Stefan Kangas wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
>> It would have been prudent to wait for the Eshell maintainer
> 
> Thanks, I'll keep that in mind for next time.  Kudos to Jim for taking
> on the work of maintaining eshell!

Thanks, this all looks right to me, though I haven't tested it out in 
practice. For minor changes like this (especially for code that long 
predates my involvement), I don't think there's any real harm in others 
committing changes without first getting an ok from me. Still, it's 
probably reasonable to be on the safe side and let me take a look first 
(unless I'm nonresponsive for a while, of course).

Message #22 received at 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
Cc: emacs <at> unbit.co.uk, 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, stefankangas <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#65245: Possible code removal in eshell/diff (em-unix.el)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2023 20:54:48 +0300

> Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2023 10:32:34 -0700
> Cc: emacs <at> unbit.co.uk, 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
> 
> On 8/13/2023 9:49 AM, Stefan Kangas wrote:
> > Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> > 
> >> It would have been prudent to wait for the Eshell maintainer
> > 
> > Thanks, I'll keep that in mind for next time.  Kudos to Jim for taking
> > on the work of maintaining eshell!
> 
> Thanks, this all looks right to me, though I haven't tested it out in 
> practice. For minor changes like this (especially for code that long 
> predates my involvement), I don't think there's any real harm in others 
> committing changes without first getting an ok from me. Still, it's 
> probably reasonable to be on the safe side and let me take a look first 
> (unless I'm nonresponsive for a while, of course).

Changes in any Emacs package that has an active maintainer should be
coordinated with that maintainer.  The only exceptions are obvious
fixes like typos, clear omissions, and other such stuff.

Message #25 received at 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: emacs <at> unbit.co.uk, Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>,
 stefankangas <at> gmail.com, 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#65245: Possible code removal in eshell/diff (em-unix.el)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 09:26:07 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

Hi Eli,

> Changes in any Emacs package that has an active maintainer should be
> coordinated with that maintainer.  The only exceptions are obvious
> fixes like typos, clear omissions, and other such stuff.

According to admin/MAINTAINERS, Amin Bandali is the official eshell
maintainer. Could we please fix this?

Best regards, Michael.

Message #28 received at 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>
Cc: emacs <at> unbit.co.uk, Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>,
 Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Amin Bandali <bandali <at> gnu.org>,
 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#65245: Possible code removal in eshell/diff (em-unix.el)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 11:07:42 +0200

[Copying in Amin Bandali.]

Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de> writes:

> According to admin/MAINTAINERS, Amin Bandali is the official eshell
> maintainer. Could we please fix this?

Perhaps that should also be moved "Maintainer:" headers in
eshell/*.el.  It would presumably make the information easier to find
for hapless developers.

BTW, I see some conflicting information for ERC in admin/maintainers
and lisp/erc.el.  The former lists Kelvin White, while the latter
lists Amin Bandali and F. Jason Park.

Message #31 received at 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>
Cc: emacs <at> unbit.co.uk, jporterbugs <at> gmail.com, stefankangas <at> gmail.com,
 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#65245: Possible code removal in eshell/diff (em-unix.el)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 15:04:20 +0300

> From: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>
> Cc: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>,  emacs <at> unbit.co.uk,
>   65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  stefankangas <at> gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 09:26:07 +0200
> 
> > Changes in any Emacs package that has an active maintainer should be
> > coordinated with that maintainer.  The only exceptions are obvious
> > fixes like typos, clear omissions, and other such stuff.
> 
> According to admin/MAINTAINERS, Amin Bandali is the official eshell
> maintainer. Could we please fix this?

Jim, care to add yourself to that file?

(Btw, I never consult that file.  I always look at "git log" instead.)

Message #34 received at 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>
Cc: emacs <at> unbit.co.uk, 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, stefankangas <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#65245: Possible code removal in eshell/diff (em-unix.el)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 20:02:30 -0700

On 8/14/2023 5:04 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Jim, care to add yourself to that file?
> 
> (Btw, I never consult that file.  I always look at "git log" instead.)

Now done. I left Amin Bandali's entry in the "willing to maintain" 
section since it seems that multiple people can have some level of 
maintainership, and I certainly have no problem sharing the maintenance 
with others who are interested.

Message #37 received at 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Amin Bandali <bandali <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>, 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 "F. Jason Park" <jp <at> neverwas.me>, emacs <at> unbit.co.uk,
 Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#65245: Possible code removal in eshell/diff (em-unix.el)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 00:33:15 -0400

Hi Stefan, all,

Stefan Kangas writes:

> [Copying in Amin Bandali.]
>
> Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de> writes:
>
>> According to admin/MAINTAINERS, Amin Bandali is the official eshell
>> maintainer. Could we please fix this?
>
> Perhaps that should also be moved "Maintainer:" headers in
> eshell/*.el.  It would presumably make the information easier to find
> for hapless developers.

Regarding eshell, I never assumed its maintenance; rather, I'd added
myself to the second section of admin/MAINTAINERS, indicating that I'd
be willing to try maintaining it if no one else does.  But it appears
that things changed recently, with Jim stepping up to maintain it per
046b5eb90d2a (thanks Jim!).

> BTW, I see some conflicting information for ERC in admin/maintainers
> and lisp/erc.el.  The former lists Kelvin White, while the latter
> lists Amin Bandali and F. Jason Park.
>

Regarding ERC, lisp/erc/erc.el is the current and correct one:
F. Jason Park (J.P.) and I are its co-maintainers.  As far as I can
tell, neither Kelvin White nor Vibhav Pant have made any commits to
lisp/erc/ in years.

Thanks,
-a

Message #40 received at 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: Amin Bandali <bandali <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>, 65245 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Vibhav Pant <vibhavp <at> gmail.com>, "F. Jason Park" <jp <at> neverwas.me>,
 emacs <at> unbit.co.uk, Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>,
 Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Kelvin White <kwhite <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#65245: Possible code removal in eshell/diff (em-unix.el)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2023 12:54:36 +0200

Amin Bandali <bandali <at> gnu.org> writes:

> > BTW, I see some conflicting information for ERC in admin/maintainers
> > and lisp/erc.el.  The former lists Kelvin White, while the latter
> > lists Amin Bandali and F. Jason Park.
>
> Regarding ERC, lisp/erc/erc.el is the current and correct one:
> F. Jason Park (J.P.) and I are its co-maintainers.  As far as I can
> tell, neither Kelvin White nor Vibhav Pant have made any commits to
> lisp/erc/ in years.

I'm copying in Kelvin White and Vibhav Pant, in case they have anything to add.

Previous Next

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