[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why are so many great packages not trying to get included in GNU Ema

From: Basil L. Contovounesios
Subject: Re: Why are so many great packages not trying to get included in GNU Emacs? WAS: Re: Making Emacs more friendly to newcomers
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 21:30:38 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel@yandex.ru> writes:

> On Sat, 2020-06-13 at 20:31 +0100, Basil L. Contovounesios wrote:
>> Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel@yandex.ru> writes:
>> > FTR, I am all for having good commit messages. It is IMO a must have for 
>> > any
>> > git
>> > project. But having a list of function names with description for each does
>> > not
>> > make one.
>> FWIW, one great benefit of this list for me is that I can quickly
>> 'git log --grep' for all commits that mention a particular definition.
>> Doing the same with 'git log -G' is painfully slower and with a far
>> lower signal:noise ratio.
> You can get that purely with git by using option `-L` of gitlong. It has 
> syntax
> `-L :<funcname>:<file>`.
> To give you example, I just looked at my recent change in python.el, and the
> diff says the region belongs to 
> `python-font-lock-keywords-maximum-decoration`.
> So I execute:
>       git log -L :python-font-lock-keywords-maximum-
> decoration:lisp/progmodes/python.el
> And I get a log of commits that changed that function. Git version 2.27.0

And what if a commit message references a particular variable or
function without touching the file that they're defined in?  I'm talking
about more general xrefing.

>> > Instead it should be an overview of what is done, why, and how.
>> That, or at the very least linking to the relevant bug/thread
>> discussions, is always a good thing to do and encouraged.
>> > Suppose you have a patch that deduplicates the same code pattern across 34
>> > functions by factoring it out to a single short function. Do you really 
>> > need
>> > that list?
>> No, in such cases there are shortcuts you can take, such as "all callers
>> changed".
> Oh, is that something new?

It's older than I've been around these parts (~2016).

> I'm just wondering, why when I did the change to
> replace hex regexes with xdigit 
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=36167 I had to write all 
> hundreds
> of functions instead of a one liner "all callers are changed"?

You didn't exactly.  It is possible to take shortcuts depending on the
context.  See the file CONTRIBUTE or (info "(standards) Change Logs")


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]