bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

Nicolas Semrau-3
Five years ago, Stefan Monnier asked if vt100-led.el and vt-control.el
could be obsoleted.[1] Since there was no objection at the time (and
the hardware certainly not gaining in popularity since then), I propose
to go through with declaring /lisp/vt-control.el and /lisp/vt100-led.el
obsolete.

[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-05/msg00169.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

Eli Zaretskii
> From: Nicolas Semrau <[hidden email]>
> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 18:49:56 +0200
>
> Five years ago, Stefan Monnier asked if vt100-led.el and vt-control.el
> could be obsoleted.[1] Since there was no objection at the time (and
> the hardware certainly not gaining in popularity since then), I propose
> to go through with declaring /lisp/vt-control.el and /lisp/vt100-led.el
> obsolete.

Aren't they useful with lisp/term/vtXXX.el, which we didn't yet
obsolete?



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

Stefan Kangas
Eli Zaretskii <[hidden email]> writes:

>> From: Nicolas Semrau <[hidden email]>
>> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 18:49:56 +0200
>>
>> Five years ago, Stefan Monnier asked if vt100-led.el and vt-control.el
>> could be obsoleted.[1] Since there was no objection at the time (and
>> the hardware certainly not gaining in popularity since then), I propose
>> to go through with declaring /lisp/vt-control.el and /lisp/vt100-led.el
>> obsolete.
>
> Aren't they useful with lisp/term/vtXXX.el, which we didn't yet
> obsolete?

Is there any reason not to obsolete lisp/term/vtXXX.el as well?

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

Eli Zaretskii
> From: Stefan Kangas <[hidden email]>
> Cc: Nicolas Semrau <[hidden email]>,  [hidden email],
>  Stefan Monnier <[hidden email]>
> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 05:19:14 +0100
>
> > Aren't they useful with lisp/term/vtXXX.el, which we didn't yet
> > obsolete?
>
> Is there any reason not to obsolete lisp/term/vtXXX.el as well?

I think they are still being used, albeit rarely, with emulators of
those old terminals.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

Stefan Kangas
Eli Zaretskii <[hidden email]> writes:

> > > Aren't they useful with lisp/term/vtXXX.el, which we didn't yet
> > > obsolete?
> >
> > Is there any reason not to obsolete lisp/term/vtXXX.el as well?
>
> I think they are still being used, albeit rarely, with emulators of
> those old terminals.

Would it make sense to mark them as obsolete and if anyone complains
to create a new ELPA package for them instead?  We could even say in
NEWS that, in case anyone is still using this, we would appreciate it
if they reported back to emacs-devel or somesuch.  (I think I've seen
that being done once before, so there is some precedent.)

My objective in writing this is to figure out a way forward for the
original request/suggestion, but I don't feel very strongly about it.
However, if we can't find a reasonable way to do this, or if we don't
want to, I think we're better off closing this as wontfix.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

Eli Zaretskii
> From: Stefan Kangas <[hidden email]>
> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 01:02:35 +0100
> Cc: [hidden email], [hidden email],
> Stefan Monnier <[hidden email]>
>
> Would it make sense to mark them as obsolete and if anyone complains
> to create a new ELPA package for them instead?  We could even say in
> NEWS that, in case anyone is still using this, we would appreciate it
> if they reported back to emacs-devel or somesuch.  (I think I've seen
> that being done once before, so there is some precedent.)
>
> My objective in writing this is to figure out a way forward for the
> original request/suggestion, but I don't feel very strongly about it.
> However, if we can't find a reasonable way to do this, or if we don't
> want to, I think we're better off closing this as wontfix.

I prefer the latter.  This issue is so minor that we've already
invested way too much energy in it.  There's no tangible benefit in
obsoleting these tiny files.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

Nicolas Semrau-3
> There's no tangible benefit in obsoleting these tiny files.

So files like this will probably stay in the codebase indefinitely?

I am aware that they do not make Emacs "worse", performance-wise. I
just think linting files for those unused stone-age systems is
beneficial at least in the sense of alleviating a certain "museum
piece vibe" of Emacs.
Am Fr., 8. Nov. 2019 um 10:58 Uhr schrieb Eli Zaretskii <[hidden email]>:
> From: Stefan Kangas <[hidden email]>
> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 01:02:35 +0100
> Cc: [hidden email], [hidden email],
>       Stefan Monnier <[hidden email]>
>
> Would it make sense to mark them as obsolete and if anyone complains
> to create a new ELPA package for them instead?  We could even say in
> NEWS that, in case anyone is still using this, we would appreciate it
> if they reported back to emacs-devel or somesuch.  (I think I've seen
> that being done once before, so there is some precedent.)
>
> My objective in writing this is to figure out a way forward for the
> original request/suggestion, but I don't feel very strongly about it.
> However, if we can't find a reasonable way to do this, or if we don't
> want to, I think we're better off closing this as wontfix.

I prefer the latter.  This issue is so minor that we've already
invested way too much energy in it.  There's no tangible benefit in
obsoleting these tiny files.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

bug#37562: 26.2; Obsolete vt-control and vt100-led

Eli Zaretskii
> From: Nicolas Semrau <[hidden email]>
> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:45:10 +0100
> Cc: Stefan Kangas <[hidden email]>, [hidden email], [hidden email]
>
> > There's no tangible benefit in obsoleting these tiny files.
>
> So files like this will probably stay in the codebase indefinitely?

"Indefinitely" is a very long time.

Some time, maybe not very far away, but definitely much sooner than
"indefinitely", I will step down, and someone else will be in charge
of these decisions.  They might make a different decision about this
issue.

My personal preference is to invest energy in adding new features and
improving existing features, rather than in making such insignificant
cleanups.  YMMV.