Re: Emacs next variants

On 2023-04-26 18:52, Mekeor Melire wrote: > 2023-03-10 16:39 zimon.touto...@gmail.com: > >> As far I know, this branch does not contain the feature >> Tree-sitter. Instead, the feature Tree-sitter is in the branch >> "master", which will be branched later as Emacs 30 and somehow >> will be the

Re: Emacs next variants

2023-03-10 16:39 zimon.touto...@gmail.com: As far I know, this branch does not contain the feature Tree-sitter. Instead, the feature Tree-sitter is in the branch "master", which will be branched later as Emacs 30 and somehow will be the next next release of Emacs. 2023-03-12 12:47 and...@tro

Re: Emacs next variants

Am Sonntag, dem 12.03.2023 um 10:46 +0100 schrieb indieterminacy: > Out of curiosity, where do such prescriptions concerning one tool or > a set of tools get documented? It isn't, but note the manual on version numbers leads with > We usually package only the latest version of a given free software

Re: Emacs next variants

On 12-03-2023 08:46, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: Am Sonntag, dem 12.03.2023 um 09:18 +0400 schrieb Andrew Tropin: > As for tree-sitter-with/without-gtk, I have no opinion here.  We > could try exporting package rewriters so that everyone can have > their cup of tea, but maintaining one's own Em

Re: Emacs next variants

On 2023-03-12 08:46, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: > Am Sonntag, dem 12.03.2023 um 09:18 +0400 schrieb Andrew Tropin: >> > As for tree-sitter-with/without-gtk, I have no opinion here.  We >> > could try exporting package rewriters so that everyone can have >> > their cup of tea, but maintaining one

Re: Emacs next variants

Am Sonntag, dem 12.03.2023 um 09:18 +0400 schrieb Andrew Tropin: > > As for tree-sitter-with/without-gtk, I have no opinion here.  We > > could try exporting package rewriters so that everyone can have > > their cup of tea, but maintaining one's own Emacs on the > > user/channel level ought not to

Re: Emacs next variants

On 2023-03-10 20:36, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: > Am Freitag, dem 10.03.2023 um 22:44 +0400 schrieb Andrew Tropin: >> > > Thanks for pointing that.  From my understanding, it does not >> > > change what Cayetanos is raising: emacs-next-tree-sitter is built >> > > using '--with-pgtk'.  In fact, t

Re: Emacs next variants

On 2023-03-10 21:39, Cayetano Santos wrote: >>ven. 10 mars 2023 at 22:44, Andrew Tropin wrote: > >> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] >> On 2023-03-10 19:24, Cayetano Santos wrote: >> ven. 10 mars 2023 at 19:14, Simon Tournier wrote: >>> Hi, On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 17:59, John Keha

Re: Emacs next variants

>ven. 10 mars 2023 at 22:44, Andrew Tropin wrote: > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] > On 2023-03-10 19:24, Cayetano Santos wrote: > >>>ven. 10 mars 2023 at 19:14, Simon Tournier wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 17:59, John Kehayias >>> wrote: >>> During this discussion som

Re: Emacs next variants

Am Freitag, dem 10.03.2023 um 22:44 +0400 schrieb Andrew Tropin: > > > Thanks for pointing that.  From my understanding, it does not > > > change what Cayetanos is raising: emacs-next-tree-sitter is built > > > using '--with-pgtk'.  In fact, the package emacs-next-tree-sitter > > > is built using t

Re: Emacs next variants

On 2023-03-10 19:24, Cayetano Santos wrote: >>ven. 10 mars 2023 at 19:14, Simon Tournier wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 17:59, John Kehayias >> wrote: >> >>> During this discussion some changes were made to this inheritance structure >>> in >>> >>>

Re: Emacs next variants

On 2023-03-10 19:14, Simon Tournier wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 17:59, John Kehayias > wrote: > >> During this discussion some changes were made to this inheritance structure >> in >> >>

Re: Emacs next variants

>ven. 10 mars 2023 at 19:14, Simon Tournier wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 17:59, John Kehayias > wrote: > >> During this discussion some changes were made to this inheritance structure >> in >> >>

Re: Emacs next variants

Hi, On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 17:59, John Kehayias wrote: > During this discussion some changes were made to this inheritance structure in > > > > and > >

Re: Emacs next variants

Hi all, On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 04:39 PM, Simon Tournier wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 16:04, Cayetano Santos wrote: > >> Fine with me, even if to me emacs-next means latest from master, >> including tree-sitter. You decide to use the feature, or not. > > Just to be sure we are on the

Re: Emacs next variants

Hi, On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 16:04, Cayetano Santos wrote: > Fine with me, even if to me emacs-next means latest from master, > including tree-sitter. You decide to use the feature, or not. Just to be sure we are on the same wavelength. :-) The package emacs-next is not currently following "mast

Re: Emacs next variants

>ven. 10 mars 2023 at 13:07, Simon Tournier wrote: > Note that emacs-next-tree-sitter is not from the 29 branch (emacs-next) > but from the 30 branch. Therefore, it would mean emacs-next-pgtk also > be an Emacs 30 version. I do not use them so I have not opinion. > > And why not split the cha

Re: Emacs next variants

Hi, On jeu., 09 mars 2023 at 19:51, Cayetano Santos wrote: > (emacs-next-tree-sitter (emacs-next-gtk (emacs-next (emacs [...] > (emacs-next-gtk (emacs-next-tree-sitter (emacs-next (emacs Note that emacs-next-tree-sitter is not from the 29 branch (emacs-next) but from the 30 br

Emacs next variants

Hi guix, As for today, the inheritance of emacs, master branch, variants is as follows (emacs-next-tree-sitter (emacs-next-gtk (emacs-next (emacs Having tree-sitter is really useful, but optional, and doesn’t produce any harm to users. They may opt to use it, or not. This is