GNU bug report logs - #66143
[PATCH]: Update emacs-slime and sbcl-slime-swank to 2.28-0.1e4b741

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 66143 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 66143 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: André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH]: Update emacs-slime and sbcl-slime-swank to 2.28-0.1e4b741
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 23:51:17 +0300

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

Hi Guix,

Please find the patch attached.  Thanks!

-- 
André A. Gomes
"You cannot even find the ruins..."

[0001-gnu-emacs-slime-Update-to-2.28-0.1e4b741.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0002-gnu-sbcl-slime-swank-Update-to-2.28-0.1e4b741.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

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

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 66143 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#66143] [PATCH]: Update emacs-slime and sbcl-slime-swank to
 2.28-0.1e4b741
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:01:13 +0100

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

André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Guix,
>
> Please find the patch attached.  Thanks!

It seems like you've attached two patches? It's useful to just send one
patch per email, as lots of tooling expects that.

Looking at the first patch though, packaging anything but the latest
release shouldn't be the norm [1].

1: https://guix.gnu.org/manual/en/guix.html#index-version-number_002c-for-VCS-snapshots

You need to put the reasoning for updating these packages to these
specific commits in to some comments. Depending on that justification as
well, we need to decide whether to ship these versions in addition to
the latest releases, or as you're doing currently to replace the latest
releases with these snapshots.

What approach to take depends on the justification, e.g. if the latest
release is unusable or using it could be problematic, then replacing it
with a snapshot seems better, otherwise, we should create package
variants (e.g. emacs-slime-next) for these snapshots.

Does that make sense?

Thanks,

Chris

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

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

From: André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com>
To: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Cc: 66143 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#66143] [PATCH]: Update emacs-slime and sbcl-slime-swank to
 2.28-0.1e4b741
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 12:16:05 +0300

Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:

> It seems like you've attached two patches? It's useful to just send one
> patch per email, as lots of tooling expects that.

I'm more used to sending patches as email attachments, instead of using
git-send-email.  If Guix requires the latter then I'll adjust, but I've
been sending plenty of patches following the former approach.

> Looking at the first patch though, packaging anything but the latest
> release shouldn't be the norm [1].
>
> 1: https://guix.gnu.org/manual/en/guix.html#index-version-number_002c-for-VCS-snapshots
>
> You need to put the reasoning for updating these packages to these
> specific commits in to some comments. Depending on that justification as
> well, we need to decide whether to ship these versions in addition to
> the latest releases, or as you're doing currently to replace the latest
> releases with these snapshots.
>
> What approach to take depends on the justification, e.g. if the latest
> release is unusable or using it could be problematic, then replacing it
> with a snapshot seems better, otherwise, we should create package
> variants (e.g. emacs-slime-next) for these snapshots.

It makes no sense to have emacs-slime-next and cl-slime-swank-next.
I've bumped it because significant changes have been introduced since
the last tagged released.

In the meantime, I've kindly request a tagged release upstream.  Whether
I'll get a reply soon remains to be seen.

https://github.com/slime/slime/issues/792

With all respect to your work, Christopher Baines, I'd kindly suggest a
review by the Common Lisp team - Guillaume Le Vaillant, who has been
reviewing most of my patches lately.

Thanks!


-- 
André A. Gomes
"You cannot even find the ruins..."

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

From: André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com>
To: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Cc: glv <at> posteo.net, ludo <at> gnu.org, 66143 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#66143] [PATCH]: Update emacs-slime and sbcl-slime-swank to
 2.28-0.1e4b741
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 13:19:07 +0300

André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com> writes:

> It makes no sense to have emacs-slime-next and cl-slime-swank-next.
> I've bumped it because significant changes have been introduced since
> the last tagged released.
>
> In the meantime, I've kindly request a tagged release upstream.  Whether
> I'll get a reply soon remains to be seen.
>
> https://github.com/slime/slime/issues/792

Still no reply to my request to tag a new release.  These projects are
run by volunteers and releases are rare.

Recently Ludovic merged a similar patch in spirit (relative to SLY,
instead of Slime), see https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=66100.

I'd kindly ask to take another look at the patch.  I'm adding Ludo and
Guillaume in CC.  Thanks!

As a sidenote, I'm considering requesting commit access to Guix to help
the team that handles Common Lisp and WebKitGTK.  I am part of the Nyxt
team - https://github.com/atlas-engineer/nyxt.


-- 
André A. Gomes
"You cannot even find the ruins..."

Message #28 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com>
To: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Cc: glv <at> posteo.net, ludo <at> gnu.org, 66143 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#66143] [PATCH]: Update emacs-slime and sbcl-slime-swank to
 2.28-0.1e4b741
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 22:46:48 +0300

André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com> writes:

> André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> It makes no sense to have emacs-slime-next and cl-slime-swank-next.
>> I've bumped it because significant changes have been introduced since
>> the last tagged released.
>>
>> In the meantime, I've kindly request a tagged release upstream.  Whether
>> I'll get a reply soon remains to be seen.
>>
>> https://github.com/slime/slime/issues/792

The author ignored my kind request release.

I still think that it is not necessary to maintain both emacs-slime-next
and emacs-slime, but please help me to get this patch through.  Thanks.


-- 
André A. Gomes
"You cannot even find the ruins..."

Message #34 received at 66143 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
To: André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com>
Cc: ludo <at> gnu.org, Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>, 66143 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#66143] [PATCH]: Update emacs-slime and sbcl-slime-swank to
 2.28-0.1e4b741
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2023 11:51:27 +0000

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

Hi.
Concerning patch 2 for sbcl-slime-swank, the first 'substitute*' form
of the 'set-fasl-directory' phase looks obsolete because of changes in
"swank.asd".
If the fasl files are now put in the right place even without it, and if
slime and swank still work fine, could you send an updated patch?
Thanks.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #37 received at 66143 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com>
To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
Cc: ludo <at> gnu.org, Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>, 66143 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#66143] [PATCH]: Update emacs-slime and sbcl-slime-swank to
 2.28-0.1e4b741
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 10:31:59 +0300

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

Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net> writes:

> Hi.
> Concerning patch 2 for sbcl-slime-swank, the first 'substitute*' form
> of the 'set-fasl-directory' phase looks obsolete because of changes in
> "swank.asd".
> If the fasl files are now put in the right place even without it, and if
> slime and swank still work fine, could you send an updated patch?
> Thanks.

Hi Guillaume,

Thanks for pointing that out.  Please find the updated patches attached.


-- 
André A. Gomes
"You cannot even find the ruins..."

[0001-gnu-emacs-slime-Update-to-2.28-0.0cc2e73.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0002-gnu-sbcl-slime-swank-Update-to-2.28-0.0cc2e73.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #42 received at 66143-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
To: André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com>
Cc: ludo <at> gnu.org, Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>,
 66143-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#66143] [PATCH]: Update emacs-slime and sbcl-slime-swank to
 2.28-0.1e4b741
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 12:40:39 +0000

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

Patches applied as d62a613bcff726dfc835313064228e7bc3b7cda6 and
following, with a completed commit message for the second patch.
Thanks.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #45 received at 66143-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
Cc: 66143-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#66143] [PATCH]: Update emacs-slime and sbcl-slime-swank to
 2.28-0.1e4b741
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 14:08:28 +0100

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

Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net> writes:

> Patches applied as d62a613bcff726dfc835313064228e7bc3b7cda6 and
> following, with a completed commit message for the second patch.

I did raise an objection earlier in the thread to these changes being
merged. Not discussing (or even acknowledging issues raised) is
unhelpful.

Given what I've now read from upstream [1], I think it can be justified
in this case, but this is independent from the above. I think we still
should record reasons for deviating from the norm in comments (and
commit messages if useful).

1: https://github.com/slime/slime/issues/792

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

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