Subject: Re: [bug#74135] [PATCH 1/2] gnu: Improve emacs-popwin definition.

From: Rostislav Svoboda <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:54:15 +0100

Hello Nicolas,

> I disagree with the removal of "#:tests? #f". It is more meaningful than
> simply omitting the keyword. It tells us that the package has tests, but
> they are difficult or even impossible to run. Without the keyword, it
> could as well mean: "I didn't bother to check if there are tests".

Which is, in fact, the default behavior of the #:tests parameter. By
default, we do not run any tests, so why bother verifying their
existence when they’re unnecessary by default?

> I have no opinion about the removal of native inputs.

Including emacs-ert-runner - a package designed for "Emacs projects
tested using ERT" - among native inputs is pointless if no tests are
executed.

> I also think the change to version should go in the second patch.

In the first patch, I intended to fix the Guix package definition
without updating the package itself. That's why I incremented the
revision number from its default (presumably 0) to 1. The v1.0.2 tag
corresponds to commit 215d6cb509b11c63394a20666565cd9e9b2c2eab.

In the second patch, I then proceeded with updating the Emacs package.

Cheers,
Bost