Subject: bug#70036: a fix that

From: João Távora <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 12:34:30 +0100

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 12:12 PM Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > > I _think_, but can't be 100% sure, that I explicitly decided that 6 years
> > > ago, I just didn't document it  explicitly beyond typing in "file-truename".
> > > Git archeology brings me to a commit in 2018 where I was reorganizing
> > > code, and file-truename was already there.  I definitely knew about
> > > expand-file-name in 2018 though.
> >
> > The fact that I chose find-buffer-visiting over get-file-buffer around
> > the same time is another hint...
>
> Without proper commentary, this is a very weak hint.  It could, for
> example, mean the problem you wanted to solve no longer exists, or
> even that you were unsure about whether expand-file-name could do the
> job.

If I indeed _meant_ to solve the symlink problem, then it most definitely
still exists.  I've demonstrated that.

Intentional or not, the fact of the matter is that Eglot was usable
from very early on projects with symlinks.   Not all clients can boast
that, as seems to be evidenced some bug reports to the servers pertaining
to some other clients.

Regardless, foregoing this behaviour should be at a minimum documented
and would need an extremely well-fundamented reason.  But there was not
even sufficient awareness that the behaviour was being abandoned.  Which
is, like, totally OK and common and normal, and doesn't bring into
question the high  credentials of anyone  involved in this discussion.

João