[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: master 82ccc3a: ; Mention the previous change in NEWS
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: master 82ccc3a: ; Mention the previous change in NEWS |
Date: |
Tue, 08 Jun 2021 18:02:08 +0300 |
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 17:46:16 +0300
>
> >>> *** Commands that use 'grep-find' now follow symlinks by default.
> >>
> >> Not exactly: going by the option's description in the manual, it follows
> >> symlinks for all arguments passed from the command line
> >
> > That's easily fixed, and isn't the main point of my message.
>
> Just helping get the details right.
Sure; thanks.
> >> rgrep, which also has some ignores to handle, uses "." as the DIR
> >> argument, so it should see no change.
> >
> > That's just the default, right?
>
> No, that's what it does: it passes for directory to search in through
> the value of default-directory. The argument to 'find' is always ".".
Not sure I follow: the user could customize grep-find-template to put
a specific directory instead of <D>, right?
> >> xref-matches-in-directory has no known callers anymore, but any
> >> third-party code should see the IGNORES honored better with those old
> >> versions of 'find'.
> >
> > So we could say that any command which uses xref-matches-in-directory
> > is affected.
>
> Is that better than saying that the variable changed? Possibly affecting
> any code that uses it is an obvious implication.
How about saying both?
> We can say that about xref-matches-in-directory, noting that the change
> is likely to only be noticeable with old versions of 'find'.
That'd be good, yes.
> Which apparently includes macOS systems, but I'm not sure which
> ones, and whether using "Homebrew" or not matters for this case.
Maybe also some *BSD? We could mention macOS, or we could say
something like "non-GNU Find".
> Also, we'll probably mark xref-matches-in-directory as obsolete sooner
> or later (xref-matches-in-files is generally a better, more composable
> choice), so I'm not sure how much attention we should bring to it.
We aren't there yet, though.
> > Once again, if nothing's changed, why did you decide to add this
> > entry? I guess you thought it had some importance. I just think we
> > should better explain what have really changed, and doing that in the
> > terms of a not-so-simple value of an option doesn't make that clear.
>
> I figured you wanted to enumerate the exact commands that were affected.
I thought that was possible. If not, let's say what we can.
- Re: master 82ccc3a: ; Mention the previous change in NEWS, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/06/07
- Re: master 82ccc3a: ; Mention the previous change in NEWS, Dmitry Gutov, 2021/06/07
- Re: master 82ccc3a: ; Mention the previous change in NEWS, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/06/08
- Re: master 82ccc3a: ; Mention the previous change in NEWS, Dmitry Gutov, 2021/06/08
- Re: master 82ccc3a: ; Mention the previous change in NEWS,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: master 82ccc3a: ; Mention the previous change in NEWS, Dmitry Gutov, 2021/06/08
- Re: master 82ccc3a: ; Mention the previous change in NEWS, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/06/08
- Re: master 82ccc3a: ; Mention the previous change in NEWS, Dmitry Gutov, 2021/06/08
- Re: master 82ccc3a: ; Mention the previous change in NEWS, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/06/10
- Re: master 82ccc3a: ; Mention the previous change in NEWS, Dmitry Gutov, 2021/06/10
- Re: master 82ccc3a: ; Mention the previous change in NEWS, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/06/10
- Re: master 82ccc3a: ; Mention the previous change in NEWS, Dmitry Gutov, 2021/06/10
- Re: master 82ccc3a: ; Mention the previous change in NEWS, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/06/11