Hi Morgan,
Morgan Smith <morgan.j.sm...@outlook.com> wrote:
> It seems I am taking some credit for Jack Hill's patch. I simply took
> Jack's patch (labeled as patch v3 in the debbugs thread) and attempted
> to build it with my personal config.
Indeed, I see that now. Sorry for the mistake. I suppose it happened
because it was presented to me as "the patch Morgan submitted", but it
would have been better if I had taken the time to read the bug report
more carefully.
Also, I regret if my comments on the preliminary patch made anyone feel
badly. To be clear, there's no shame in submitting an unfinished patch
for review. On the contrary, it is a *very* useful contribution. In
this case, it makes sense to start by updating the main 'emacs' package,
and to worry about the other variants later. There's no fault in that.
The only fault here lies with me. I should have looked more carefully
for prior work, and I probably also pushed it prematurely.
> (Also just my 2 cents, we should have upgraded emacs-next to 27.1 and
> only upgraded emacs a week later. Emacs deserves more care than most
> packages due to its dependence on so many other packages. Not trying to
> shame anyone, just something to think of for next time.)
Agreed, or perhaps 'emacs' itself should have been updated on a separate
branch. In the past, when this was a smaller community and there were
far fewer emacs packages in Guix, I did major updates of Emacs a few
times without causing any obvious problems, but that was a different
time. It's also possible that Emacs 27 was a more disruptive update
than usual.
Thanks very much for your comments and contributions.
Best regards,
Mark
