From: Adam Porter <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Policy proposal: Do not move existing functions/macros except in major version increments
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 22:03:37 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
Nicolas Goaziou <email@example.com> writes:
> Adam Porter <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> The relatively recent moving of org-get-outline-path to org-refile.el
>> has caused breakage in Org itself in several places, e.g.
>> Thankfully, Kyle has proposed a patch to revert that change. I hope
>> it is merged.
>> If it is not, when a new Org version is released with those changes
> What makes you think a new Org would be released in this situation,
> without fixing it first?
I don't know what will happen. I don't know whether the Org maintainers
would consider the problem serious enough to avert (as you said later,
"it happens"). That's why I pointed out what the consequences would be
if the patch isn't merged, to encourage its merging.
>> I think changes like this should not be made without very careful
>> consideration of the wider implications. These kinds of changes
>> create a not-insubstantial burden on maintainers of Org-related
>> packages to keep up with churn and maintain compatibility with
>> multiple Org versions (which are used in the wild for years--I know
>> of users still using Org 8, as well as Org 9 versions that are
>> included with older Emacs versions (e.g. Emacs 26.3 is still stuck in
>> Debian unstable, not migrating to testing, stable, or backports)).
>> So, I propose that changes like these should not be made except in
>> major version increments, e.g. this change should have been delayed
>> until the release of Org 10.0. It would be helpful for users and
>> package authors if they knew that changes like these would not be
>> made until the next major version increment.
> FWIW, I think this is too strong a requirement.
> This breakage is unfortunate, and I can hear the consequences it has
> on the Org ecosystem, but, hey, it happens. Note that moving part of
> Org elsewhere usually introduces less friction. This is a relatively
> exceptional situation.
Of course, I am biased here, but I feel like it's not quite as
exceptional as it ought to be. The more Org-related packages I make and
maintain, the more version-specific workarounds I have to add due to
changed function names, signatures, etc. These are sometimes necessary,
of course, but I think they should be made more carefully and
Of course, Org doesn't make any promises to third-party packages. But
that is the issue, isn't it? I'm saying that I think it should start
taking this issue a little more seriously. :)
> Master is an unstable branch, relatively open to experimentation.
> Moreover, that experimentation happens before deciding if the next
> release should be 10.0 or 9.4, so it wouldn't help users or package
That is a matter of policy, which is what I'm proposing. When such a
change is desired (symbol name, function signature, etc), it should be
targeted at the next major version increment. If the project as a whole
is not ready to make that increment, that change should be delayed until
then--it can be developed in a branch and merged when preparing the
major release. These kinds of changes could even be documented in
advance, e.g. in a ROADMAP or PLANS file, or whatever you want to call
it, which would be more explicit and referenceable than merely a mailing
> It doesn't mean we cannot do better here. For example, I think we
> could improve the way Org loads its libraries. Ideally, external
> libraries should only (require 'org), and optionally, (require 'ox-*)
> or (require 'ol-*). Thus, changes like the one discussed here would be
> implementation details. For example, "ox-hugo.el" requires directly
> "ob-core.el", and now "org-refile.el", which is, IMO, a path to
> troubles. It should only require "org.el".
> The current situation is tricky though: "org.el" requires some
> libraries (e.g., "org-key.el", "org-table.el", ...), and some
> libraries require "org.el" (e.g., "org-capture.el", "org-element.el",
> ...). I expect "org.el" to be the entry point for the Org package, so
> loading should happen in one-way only.
> This would not solve everything, but it would certainly make things
> smoother for external libraries.
That is a good idea, and one that needs addressing. I'd be glad to give
some feedback on it, but in a separate thread, please, because it seems
like a different matter from the issue I'm raising and the proposal I'm
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-23 3:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-17 2:16 Policy proposal: Do not move existing functions/macros except in major version increments Adam Porter
2020-04-17 9:03 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2020-04-23 3:03 ` Adam Porter [this message]
2020-04-23 11:26 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2020-06-01 15:11 ` Bastien
2020-06-01 18:07 ` Adam Porter
2020-06-01 22:59 ` Bastien
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).