Re: Why are so many great packages not trying to get included in GNU Emacs? WAS: Re: Making Emacs more friendly to newcomers

[Basil L. Contovounesios]

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

> On Sat, 2020-06-13 at 21:30 +0100, Basil L. Contovounesios wrote:
>> Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel@yandex.ru> writes:
>> 
>> > 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.
>
> I feel there's some misunderstanding. The list our discussion is about only
> mentions changed functions/variables. If the git message references a variable
> that is not changed just because it is important to mention, then, well, it
> should still be there, in the commit message. That's what good commit messages
> are for: you mention things that are important to mention ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Right, I was confused in my last reply.

>> You didn't exactly.  It is possible to take shortcuts depending on the
>> context.  See the file CONTRIBUTE or (info "(standards) Change Logs")
>> https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Change-Logs.html.
>
> Oh, okay, so I read the docs, and apparently this "all callers are changed" 
> can
> only be used when you use a calling convention. In my imaginary example where
> you factored out a code from 34 functions it would not be a calling 
> convention,
> it would be a piece of code inside those functions. This is actually similar 
> to
> the patch that replaces regexes to "xdigit": you have the same pattern 
> *inside*
> many functions that you replace. No calling convention changes.

It doesn't strictly have to be a change in calling convention, you can
use your better judgement.  E.g. you can list only the affected files,
and either way you only need to mention the same message once for all
affected definitions.

-- 
Basil