what daniel said sgtm On 1/27/23, Daniel Mendler <m...@daniel-mendler.de> wrote: > On 1/27/23 21:38, Tim Cross wrote: >>> As long as we keep our promise in terms of backward compatibility with >>> older Emacs versions, I'm all for it. >> >> I would agree. I would also add that even with the use of this package, >> I don't think we should use it to increase the number of versions we >> support as support is not as simple as dropping in a compatibility >> library. > > True. The Compat package cannot fix bugs below the Elisp level or > provide APIs which cannot be backported, e.g., big integer support. If > Org relies on behavior of the Emacs display engine or the C core of a > certain Emacs version, Compat cannot help. > > The advantage would be that the maintenance burden of org-compat would > be reduced. Many packages can share the backported functions by > depending on Compat, which will increase robustness and reduce the risk > of unexpected bugs. The community only has to maintain a single set of > backported functions in a single package, instead of scattering > compatibility code across many packages. > >> These libraries come with a cost. Often, compatibility code >> does not perform as well and/or is much more complicated and more likely >> to have bugs. The more a version of emacs needs to rely on this library >> to run org-mode, the higher the likelihood performance will be degraded >> or unexpected new bugs are found. > > To give some context about the stability aspect - many backported > compatibility functions are copied verbatim from newer Emacs versions. > Every compatibility function provided by Compat is covered by tests, > which are executed via CI on all supported Emacs versions (>= 24.4). I > make sure that no functions are backported which perform much worse such > that they would introduce performance bugs. > > Daniel > >
-- The Kafka Pandemic A blog about science, health, human rights, and misopathy: https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com
