[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cutoff date for adding ruby-ts-mode?
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Cutoff date for adding ruby-ts-mode? |
Date: |
Fri, 30 Dec 2022 18:59:04 +0200 |
> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2022 17:32:47 +0200
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, pedz@easesoftware.com,
> Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA>
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
>
> Speaking of the method, how do you feel about renaming a file?
>
> If ruby-ts-mode is going to live in the same file as ruby-mode, perhaps
> the more neutral file name ruby.el would be proper? This would be in
> line with the scheme used by js.el and python.el.
I'd like to avoid any more decisions related to *-ts-mode's, let alone
binding ones. I'd like to leave that for the future, when we
(hopefully) will have a clearer picture of how best to mix
tree-sitter-supported modes with the traditional ones.
So renaming now doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
> This is not an idle lets-decide-it-later question because I want to have
> some later releases of these modes in GNU ELPA, and we'll want to have
> the built-in packages properly shadowed when someone installs a new
> version. (Perhaps Stefan has an advice here, so Cc'd).
>
> I see several (require 'ruby-mode)-s in third-party packages. There are
> not too many of them, I could just go around and ask everyone to replace
> that with (or (require 'ruby nil t) (require 'ruby-mode)). Or we could
> have a compatibility stub in Emacs 29 where ruby-mode.el just calls
> "(require 'ruby) (provide 'ruby-mode)".
>
> We don't often rename files also because of 'git log' problems, but we
> have a decent (and simple enough) plan to improve that in bug#55871.
>
> Alternatively, we break from the common scheme and put the modes in
> separate files, one depending on the other. Then they'll have to be
> separate GNU ELPA packages (I think), and we'll need to synchronously
> bump version and required-version in them every time when making
> interrelated changes in the future.
I'd prefer this alternative for now (modulo the separate ELPA packages
part, which I leave for you to decide: they could also be a single
package from my POV). If nothing else, having separate files is
similar to what at least some other *-ts-mode's do. When we revisit
these issues in the future, we'll be able to make the decisions about
all of them.
Thanks.