GNU bug report logs - #70478
30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for built-in functions and attributes.

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 70478 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 70478 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: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for built-in
 functions and attributes.
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 02:30:17 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dear maintainers,

I do a lot of programming in python and have noticed that if there is a
method of a class defined with the same name as a builtin function. It
gets highlighted with the face for builtin functions and it looks
different for all the other functions and confuses me sometimes and just
looks inconsistent.

I have made a simple fix to the treesitter query and it seems to have
fixed the problem.

Please share you thoughts on this fix. This is my first time
contributing to an open-source project and to emacs. Very excited to
hear from you guys!!!

Prateek Sharma

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

[0001-Fix-treesitter-font-lock-settings-for-built-in-funct.patch (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>,
 Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50;
 [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for built-in functions and
 attributes.
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 09:13:48 +0300

> From: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 02:30:17 +0530
> 
> I do a lot of programming in python and have noticed that if there is a
> method of a class defined with the same name as a builtin function. It
> gets highlighted with the face for builtin functions and it looks
> different for all the other functions and confuses me sometimes and just
> looks inconsistent.
> 
> I have made a simple fix to the treesitter query and it seems to have
> fixed the problem.
> 
> Please share you thoughts on this fix. This is my first time
> contributing to an open-source project and to emacs. Very excited to
> hear from you guys!!!

Thanks.  Yuan, any comments?

I have a few minor comments below.

> diff --git a/etc/NEWS b/etc/NEWS
> index 8ad1e78ca60..e5cd70b6106 100644
> --- a/etc/NEWS
> +++ b/etc/NEWS
> @@ -1319,6 +1319,15 @@ instead of:
>  This allows the user to specify command line arguments to the non
>  interactive Python interpreter specified by 'python-interpreter'.
>  
> +*** Treesitter syntax highlighting for built-in functions fixed
> +The fix highlights only the correct built-in function calls and
> +attributes with font-lock-builtin-face. When some class defines
> +a function with the same name as a built-in function, earlier it was
> +being highlighted with the same font-lock-builtin-face, which was
> +incorrect. Now, normal user defined functions will be highlighted
> +with font-lock-function-call-face face and built-in functions and
> +attributes will be highlighted with font-lock-builtin-face.

This part is not needed, I think: we don't document bugfixes in NEWS.

> +   `((call function: (identifier) @font-lock-builtin-face
> +           (:match ,(rx-to-string `(seq bol (or ,@python--treesit-builtins) eol))
> +                   @font-lock-builtin-face))
> +     (attribute attribute: (identifier) @font-lock-builtin-face
> +                (:match ,(rx-to-string `(seq bol (or ,@python--treesit-special-attributes) eol))
> +                        @font-lock-builtin-face)))

Please reformat the whitespace here to avoid exceeding 80 columns in
each individual line.

Message #11 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for
 built-in functions and attributes.
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 12:24:13 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hey, Thanks for reviewing my changes.

Here is the patch for reformatted version of the above fix. I've also
removed the announcement in the NEWS file.

On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 11:43 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
> > Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 02:30:17 +0530
> >
> > I do a lot of programming in python and have noticed that if there is a
> > method of a class defined with the same name as a builtin function. It
> > gets highlighted with the face for builtin functions and it looks
> > different for all the other functions and confuses me sometimes and just
> > looks inconsistent.
> >
> > I have made a simple fix to the treesitter query and it seems to have
> > fixed the problem.
> >
> > Please share you thoughts on this fix. This is my first time
> > contributing to an open-source project and to emacs. Very excited to
> > hear from you guys!!!
>
> Thanks.  Yuan, any comments?
>
> I have a few minor comments below.
>
> > diff --git a/etc/NEWS b/etc/NEWS
> > index 8ad1e78ca60..e5cd70b6106 100644
> > --- a/etc/NEWS
> > +++ b/etc/NEWS
> > @@ -1319,6 +1319,15 @@ instead of:
> >  This allows the user to specify command line arguments to the non
> >  interactive Python interpreter specified by 'python-interpreter'.
> >
> > +*** Treesitter syntax highlighting for built-in functions fixed
> > +The fix highlights only the correct built-in function calls and
> > +attributes with font-lock-builtin-face. When some class defines
> > +a function with the same name as a built-in function, earlier it was
> > +being highlighted with the same font-lock-builtin-face, which was
> > +incorrect. Now, normal user defined functions will be highlighted
> > +with font-lock-function-call-face face and built-in functions and
> > +attributes will be highlighted with font-lock-builtin-face.
>
> This part is not needed, I think: we don't document bugfixes in NEWS.
>
> > +   `((call function: (identifier) @font-lock-builtin-face
> > +           (:match ,(rx-to-string `(seq bol (or
> ,@python--treesit-builtins) eol))
> > +                   @font-lock-builtin-face))
> > +     (attribute attribute: (identifier) @font-lock-builtin-face
> > +                (:match ,(rx-to-string `(seq bol (or
> ,@python--treesit-special-attributes) eol))
> > +                        @font-lock-builtin-face)))
>
> Please reformat the whitespace here to avoid exceeding 80 columns in
> each individual line.
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

[0002-Reformat-treesitter-query-for-builtins-to-not-exceed.patch (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

Message #14 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for
 built-in functions and attributes.
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 12:25:24 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Also should I squash the changes of both the above commits into one and
then create a patch file?

On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 12:24 PM Prateek Sharma <
ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey, Thanks for reviewing my changes.
>
> Here is the patch for reformatted version of the above fix. I've also
> removed the announcement in the NEWS file.
>
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 11:43 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> > From: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
>> > Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 02:30:17 +0530
>> >
>> > I do a lot of programming in python and have noticed that if there is a
>> > method of a class defined with the same name as a builtin function. It
>> > gets highlighted with the face for builtin functions and it looks
>> > different for all the other functions and confuses me sometimes and just
>> > looks inconsistent.
>> >
>> > I have made a simple fix to the treesitter query and it seems to have
>> > fixed the problem.
>> >
>> > Please share you thoughts on this fix. This is my first time
>> > contributing to an open-source project and to emacs. Very excited to
>> > hear from you guys!!!
>>
>> Thanks.  Yuan, any comments?
>>
>> I have a few minor comments below.
>>
>> > diff --git a/etc/NEWS b/etc/NEWS
>> > index 8ad1e78ca60..e5cd70b6106 100644
>> > --- a/etc/NEWS
>> > +++ b/etc/NEWS
>> > @@ -1319,6 +1319,15 @@ instead of:
>> >  This allows the user to specify command line arguments to the non
>> >  interactive Python interpreter specified by 'python-interpreter'.
>> >
>> > +*** Treesitter syntax highlighting for built-in functions fixed
>> > +The fix highlights only the correct built-in function calls and
>> > +attributes with font-lock-builtin-face. When some class defines
>> > +a function with the same name as a built-in function, earlier it was
>> > +being highlighted with the same font-lock-builtin-face, which was
>> > +incorrect. Now, normal user defined functions will be highlighted
>> > +with font-lock-function-call-face face and built-in functions and
>> > +attributes will be highlighted with font-lock-builtin-face.
>>
>> This part is not needed, I think: we don't document bugfixes in NEWS.
>>
>> > +   `((call function: (identifier) @font-lock-builtin-face
>> > +           (:match ,(rx-to-string `(seq bol (or
>> ,@python--treesit-builtins) eol))
>> > +                   @font-lock-builtin-face))
>> > +     (attribute attribute: (identifier) @font-lock-builtin-face
>> > +                (:match ,(rx-to-string `(seq bol (or
>> ,@python--treesit-special-attributes) eol))
>> > +                        @font-lock-builtin-face)))
>>
>> Please reformat the whitespace here to avoid exceeding 80 columns in
>> each individual line.
>>
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #17 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
Cc: casouri <at> gmail.com, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for
 built-in functions and attributes.
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 10:41:29 +0300

> From: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 12:25:24 +0530
> Cc: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> Also should I squash the changes of both the above commits into one and then create a patch file?

You should squash, yes.  Other than that, attaching the patches as you
did is fine.

Thanks.

Message #20 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: casouri <at> gmail.com, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for
 built-in functions and attributes.
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 13:23:34 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Here is the patch for the squashed commit and updated code. Thanks for
helping me out!


On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 1:11 PM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
> > Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 12:25:24 +0530
> > Cc: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >
> > Also should I squash the changes of both the above commits into one and
> then create a patch file?
>
> You should squash, yes.  Other than that, attaching the patches as you
> did is fine.
>
> Thanks.
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

[0001-Fix-treesitter-font-lock-settings-for-built-in-funct.patch (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

Message #23 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
To: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for
 built-in functions and attributes.
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:47:29 -0700

> On Apr 20, 2024, at 12:53 AM, Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Here is the patch for the squashed commit and updated code. Thanks for helping me out!
> 
> 
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 1:11 PM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> > From: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
> > Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 12:25:24 +0530
> > Cc: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> > 
> > Also should I squash the changes of both the above commits into one and then create a patch file?
> 
> You should squash, yes.  Other than that, attaching the patches as you
> did is fine.
> 
> Thanks.
> <0001-Fix-treesitter-font-lock-settings-for-built-in-funct.patch>

Thanks! Should I apply this to master or emacs-29? It’s a fix so I think emacs-29?

Yuan

Message #26 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
To: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for
 built-in functions and attributes.
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 10:46:44 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Well, I think emacs-29 also needs this fix.

There is one other fix with indentation in python-ts-mode that is needed in
emacs-29. But it's already fixed in emacs-30 as I've tested.

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 9:17 AM Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On Apr 20, 2024, at 12:53 AM, Prateek Sharma <
> ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Here is the patch for the squashed commit and updated code. Thanks for
> helping me out!
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 1:11 PM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> > > From: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
> > > Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 12:25:24 +0530
> > > Cc: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> > >
> > > Also should I squash the changes of both the above commits into one
> and then create a patch file?
> >
> > You should squash, yes.  Other than that, attaching the patches as you
> > did is fine.
> >
> > Thanks.
> > <0001-Fix-treesitter-font-lock-settings-for-built-in-funct.patch>
>
> Thanks! Should I apply this to master or emacs-29? It’s a fix so I think
> emacs-29?
>
> Yuan

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #29 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
Cc: ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for
 built-in functions and attributes.
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 08:27:26 +0300

> From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:47:29 -0700
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
>  70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 1:11 PM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> > > From: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
> > > Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 12:25:24 +0530
> > > Cc: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> > > 
> > > Also should I squash the changes of both the above commits into one and then create a patch file?
> > 
> > You should squash, yes.  Other than that, attaching the patches as you
> > did is fine.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > <0001-Fix-treesitter-font-lock-settings-for-built-in-funct.patch>
> 
> Thanks! Should I apply this to master or emacs-29? It’s a fix so I think emacs-29?

Yes, emacs-29 is fine.

Message #32 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for
 built-in functions and attributes.
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 16:39:40 -0700

> On Apr 20, 2024, at 10:27 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>> From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
>> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:47:29 -0700
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
>> 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> 
>>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 1:11 PM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>>>> From: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 12:25:24 +0530
>>>> Cc: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>>>> 
>>>> Also should I squash the changes of both the above commits into one and then create a patch file?
>>> 
>>> You should squash, yes.  Other than that, attaching the patches as you
>>> did is fine.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> <0001-Fix-treesitter-font-lock-settings-for-built-in-funct.patch>
>> 
>> Thanks! Should I apply this to master or emacs-29? It’s a fix so I think emacs-29?
> 
> Yes, emacs-29 is fine.

Merged. BTW, Prateek, make sure to wrap the title and body of the commit message, and not end the title with a period. 😊

Yuan

Message #37 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
To: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for
 built-in functions and attributes.
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 07:59:03 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Yuan, do you mean like this in the attached file?

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 5:09 AM Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On Apr 20, 2024, at 10:27 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
> >> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:47:29 -0700
> >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
> >> 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >>
> >>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 1:11 PM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> >>>> From: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
> >>>> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 12:25:24 +0530
> >>>> Cc: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >>>>
> >>>> Also should I squash the changes of both the above commits into one
> and then create a patch file?
> >>>
> >>> You should squash, yes.  Other than that, attaching the patches as you
> >>> did is fine.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>> <0001-Fix-treesitter-font-lock-settings-for-built-in-funct.patch>
> >>
> >> Thanks! Should I apply this to master or emacs-29? It’s a fix so I
> think emacs-29?
> >
> > Yes, emacs-29 is fine.
>
> Merged. BTW, Prateek, make sure to wrap the title and body of the commit
> message, and not end the title with a period. 😊
>
> Yuan

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

[0001-Fix-treesitter-font-lock-settings-for-built-in-funct.patch (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

Message #40 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
Cc: ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for
 built-in functions and attributes.
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:28:30 +0300

> From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 16:39:40 -0700
> Cc: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>,
>  70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > Yes, emacs-29 is fine.
> 
> Merged. BTW, Prateek, make sure to wrap the title and body of the commit message, and not end the title with a period. 😊

Did you forget to push?

Message #43 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for
 built-in functions and attributes.
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:34:16 -0700

> On Apr 21, 2024, at 11:28 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>> From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
>> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 16:39:40 -0700
>> Cc: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>,
>> 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> 
>>> Yes, emacs-29 is fine.
>> 
>> Merged. BTW, Prateek, make sure to wrap the title and body of the commit message, and not end the title with a period. 😊
> 
> Did you forget to push?

Forgot I did, sorry about the hiccup. Pushed now.

Yuan

Message #46 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
To: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for
 built-in functions and attributes.
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:36:37 -0700

> On Apr 21, 2024, at 7:29 PM, Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Yuan, do you mean like this in the attached file?

Exactly! I already amended and merged your patch. But next time you will know how to write it ;-)

Yuan

Message #49 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
To: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for
 built-in functions and attributes.
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 08:50:31 -0700

[Adding debbugs back to CC]

> On Apr 22, 2024, at 7:27 AM, Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Yuan, I saw that it was merged into the emacs-29 branch but not in master. I was wondering when we usually sync with master, like is there a schedule? So that I know when to rebuild my emacs installation.
> And thanks for guiding me through this. I also submitted the form for copyright assignment to the mail id given in the CONTRIBUTE file, but didn't get any response yet.

Oops, we should’ve waited until your copyright assignment is completed. Eli, should I revert the patch for now?

Yuan

Message #52 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
To: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for
 built-in functions and attributes.
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:48:39 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Is that mandatory for a few lines of changes as well? I thought it's
required for more than 12 lines of changes.I have submitted it, but didn't
get any response yet. Is there any way that we can speed up the process?

Prateek

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 9:20 PM Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> [Adding debbugs back to CC]
>
> > On Apr 22, 2024, at 7:27 AM, Prateek Sharma <
> ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Yuan, I saw that it was merged into the emacs-29 branch but not in
> master. I was wondering when we usually sync with master, like is there a
> schedule? So that I know when to rebuild my emacs installation.
> > And thanks for guiding me through this. I also submitted the form for
> copyright assignment to the mail id given in the CONTRIBUTE file, but
> didn't get any response yet.
>
> Oops, we should’ve waited until your copyright assignment is completed.
> Eli, should I revert the patch for now?
>
> Yuan

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #55 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>,
 Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for built-in functions and attributes.
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 19:21:41 +0300

On April 22, 2024 6:50:31 PM GMT+03:00, Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> [Adding debbugs back to CC]
> 
> > On Apr 22, 2024, at 7:27 AM, Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Yuan, I saw that it was merged into the emacs-29 branch but not in master. I was wondering when we usually sync with master, like is there a schedule? So that I know when to rebuild my emacs installation.
> > And thanks for guiding me through this. I also submitted the form for copyright assignment to the mail id given in the CONTRIBUTE file, but didn't get any response yet.
> 
> Oops, we should’ve waited until your copyright assignment is completed. Eli, should I revert the patch for now?


No need to revert, as the patch was quite small, AFAIR, below the threshold.

Message #58 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for
 built-in functions and attributes.
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:26:06 -0700

> On Apr 22, 2024, at 9:21 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> On April 22, 2024 6:50:31 PM GMT+03:00, Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> [Adding debbugs back to CC]
>> 
>>> On Apr 22, 2024, at 7:27 AM, Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Yuan, I saw that it was merged into the emacs-29 branch but not in master. I was wondering when we usually sync with master, like is there a schedule? So that I know when to rebuild my emacs installation.
>>> And thanks for guiding me through this. I also submitted the form for copyright assignment to the mail id given in the CONTRIBUTE file, but didn't get any response yet.
>> 
>> Oops, we should’ve waited until your copyright assignment is completed. Eli, should I revert the patch for now?
> 
> 
> No need to revert, as the patch was quite small, AFAIR, below the threshold.

Oh right. Somehow I thought the patch are larger than it actually it. False alarm!

Yuan

Message #61 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
Cc: ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for
 built-in functions and attributes.
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:14:03 +0300

> From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:26:06 -0700
> Cc: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>,
>  70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > On Apr 22, 2024, at 9:21 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> > 
> > No need to revert, as the patch was quite small, AFAIR, below the threshold.
> 
> Oh right. Somehow I thought the patch are larger than it actually it. False alarm!

Well, the commit log message should have had the
"Copyright-paperwork-exempt" cookie, but given that the paperwork is
in the works, this is not a grave problem.

Message #64 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for
 built-in functions and attributes.
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:16:08 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Eli,
When do we merge emacs-29 to master? I noticed that the changes are not
merged in master. Do we have a schedule for syncing master with emacs-29?

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 11:44 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
> > Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:26:06 -0700
> > Cc: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>,
> >  70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >
> > > On Apr 22, 2024, at 9:21 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > No need to revert, as the patch was quite small, AFAIR, below the
> threshold.
> >
> > Oh right. Somehow I thought the patch are larger than it actually it.
> False alarm!
>
> Well, the commit log message should have had the
> "Copyright-paperwork-exempt" cookie, but given that the paperwork is
> in the works, this is not a grave problem.
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #67 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
Cc: casouri <at> gmail.com, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for
 built-in functions and attributes.
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 18:31:51 +0300

> From: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:16:08 +0530
> Cc: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> When do we merge emacs-29 to master? I noticed that the changes are not merged in master. Do we have a
> schedule for syncing master with emacs-29?

I usually merge once a week, so it will happen in a couple of days.

Message #70 received at 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70478: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Fix treesitter-font-lock-settings for
 built-in functions and attributes.
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 21:03:09 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Okay, Thanks!

On Wed, 24 Apr, 2024, 9:01 pm Eli Zaretskii, <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: Prateek Sharma <ps.prateek.sharma143 <at> gmail.com>
> > Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:16:08 +0530
> > Cc: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>, 70478 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >
> > When do we merge emacs-29 to master? I noticed that the changes are not
> merged in master. Do we have a
> > schedule for syncing master with emacs-29?
>
> I usually merge once a week, so it will happen in a couple of days.
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Previous Next

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