Emacs is in the process of moving from legacy languages modes using regexps and elisp for syntax analysis to new modes using tree sitter.
In this context, what does a name like "c-mode" should mean? Options:
1) it should stick to the old mode, cc-mode here. To use the new mode, use explicitly c-ts-mode;
2) it should move to the new tree sitter mode, c-ts-mode. To use the old mode, use explicitly cc-mode;
3) it should mean the new preferred Emacs mode, with a way for the user to take back control if they have a different preference. This preferred mode will change at some point from legacy to tree sitter.
The change is (3), with a move to tree sitter in Emacs 30 (to be released soon) IIUC. It makes sense to me. Saying that anyone own a name as generic as "c-mode" in an open source project just because they're first and have a long history as a contributor (thanks by the way!) seems excessive. Change of default is normal in an evolving project, and as long as it's clearly documented with a way to override (which is the case IIUC) it's fine to me. One can dislike the change, but it's impossible to please everyone anyway. Emacs users are used to adjust configuration based on their preferences.
I understand it can be an emotional situation for the maintainer of the legacy mode. But I don't see the need to call foul play.
In this context, what does a name like "c-mode" should mean? Options: 1) it should stick to the old mode, cc-mode here. To use the new mode, use explicitly c-ts-mode; 2) it should move to the new tree sitter mode, c-ts-mode. To use the old mode, use explicitly cc-mode; 3) it should mean the new preferred Emacs mode, with a way for the user to take back control if they have a different preference. This preferred mode will change at some point from legacy to tree sitter.
The change is (3), with a move to tree sitter in Emacs 30 (to be released soon) IIUC. It makes sense to me. Saying that anyone own a name as generic as "c-mode" in an open source project just because they're first and have a long history as a contributor (thanks by the way!) seems excessive. Change of default is normal in an evolving project, and as long as it's clearly documented with a way to override (which is the case IIUC) it's fine to me. One can dislike the change, but it's impossible to please everyone anyway. Emacs users are used to adjust configuration based on their preferences.
I understand it can be an emotional situation for the maintainer of the legacy mode. But I don't see the need to call foul play.