Re: What's needed to get elisp updates into Guile master?

[Christopher Allan Webber]

Mathieu Lirzin writes:

> Christopher Allan Webber <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Christopher Allan Webber writes:
>>
>>> So even better news: I've successfully rebased BT Templeton's wip elisp
>>> branch on top of guile master... you can get it here:
>>>
>>>   https://gitlab.com/dustyweb/guile/tree/merge-bipt-elisp-wip
>>>
>>> Maybe I should update the Guix package to make use of that?
>>
>> So I'd like to get this merged in before it bitrots too heavily.
>> It would be a shame to not get it in, after how far it's come!
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Now that it's rebased and running on master, there are two issues I see
>> that would need to be addressed:
>>
>>  - The most recent commit disables three tests (specific to elisp).
>>    They should probably be re-enabled, or at worst at least commented
>>    out with a warning rather than being switched to expect-fail as they
>>    are right now.
>>
>>    I'd prefer re-enabling them with fixes; for now, commenting out with
>>    clear explaination still seems better than bitrot though.  (The other
>>    tests all do pass.)
>
> I don't understand why you would want to do that. 'expect-fail' is the
> correct semantic for a test that should pass but is known to currently
> fail, like in TDD.  Do I miss something?

Ah, okay!  Now I understand.  So I think leaving these as-is is fine in
merging this.

>>  - The commits are not in ChangeLog style format and are fairly terse in
>>    their message.  I imagine it's a requirement to fix that.  This seems
>>    like the bigger challenge; if anyone but the original author were to
>>    do it, there would have to be some careful reading to figure out what
>>    the purpose of each commit and change meant.  That seems like some
>>    work.  I'm not sure I have the time for it... are there any
>>    volunteers?
>
> You should bring that on emacs-devel where most people seem to think
> that a 'git commit -m "..."' with the actual diff is self explanatory.
> :)

I'm afraid to.  The emacs list has had strong responses moving between
tremendous enthusiasm for the guile-emacs work to outright hostility.  I
think there are only a couple of hostile people, but they are vocal.
I'd prefer to have the next stage of things merged before I reach out
again.

But maybe I'm being irrational.  I could probably still ask for help.

> Indeed, it seems a tedious job to add those change logs since it
> requires to understand the purpose of the commit.  The volunteer should
> be familiar with Elisp in general and the limitations of
> current/previous Guile implementation.

Yeah it's tough.

>> Is there general agreement that if we can get these two things done,
>> that it would be worth merging this?
>
> I think it would be great.

Great!