Re: [MAINTENANCE] Do we have any backwards-compatibility policy for third-party packages?

2022-12-18 Thread Ihor Radchenko
Ihor Radchenko writes: > Ok. Here are the tentative patches for Org manual and WORG maintenance > page. Applied. https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git/commit/?id=dd4e06ddc https://git.sr.ht/~bzg/worg/commit/432828ce -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn

Re: [MAINTENANCE] Do we have any backwards-compatibility policy for third-party packages?

2022-12-11 Thread Ihor Radchenko
Tim Cross writes: > - Adding a section regarding pubic/private API and naming conventions to > the Hacking section of the manual. This section could outline what the > processes are for adding/changing APIs. I think we can add a section to Hacking. But what should we list there? At

Re: [MAINTENANCE] Do we have any backwards-compatibility policy for third-party packages?

2022-12-10 Thread Tim Cross
Ihor Radchenko writes: > Tim Cross writes: > >> I guess we are limited by what the packages we rely on support. For >> example, if geiser doesn't support Emacs 26 but org is supposed to, >> there isn't much we can do. We cannot afford to fork geiser and modify >> it to add the support and

Re: [MAINTENANCE] Do we have any backwards-compatibility policy for third-party packages?

2022-12-10 Thread Ihor Radchenko
Tim Cross writes: > I guess we are limited by what the packages we rely on support. For > example, if geiser doesn't support Emacs 26 but org is supposed to, > there isn't much we can do. We cannot afford to fork geiser and modify > it to add the support and even if we provided a patch to add

Re: [MAINTENANCE] Do we have any backwards-compatibility policy for third-party packages?

2022-11-17 Thread Tim Cross
Ihor Radchenko writes: >> It might be worthwhile defining what is meant by 3rd party packages. >> >> For example, ob-scheme relying on geiser as a 3rd party package is one >> thing. Org roam is another type of 3rd party package. I think they need >> different approaches. The first is about our

Re: [MAINTENANCE] Do we have any backwards-compatibility policy for third-party packages?

2022-11-17 Thread Ihor Radchenko
> It might be worthwhile defining what is meant by 3rd party packages. > > For example, ob-scheme relying on geiser as a 3rd party package is one > thing. Org roam is another type of 3rd party package. I think they need > different approaches. The first is about our (org) interface to them and >

Re: [MAINTENANCE] Do we have any backwards-compatibility policy for third-party packages?

2022-11-16 Thread Tim Cross
Ihor Radchenko writes: > Hi, > > Org promises to support the last three Emacs releases. > However, it is less clear what is our policy wrt third-party packages. > > We do need third-party packages, for example, in babel backends. > Sometimes, we have to make changes to the ob-*.el files in