Stefan Kangas writes: > Mauro Aranda writes: > >>> +*** Customize will no longer show obsolete user options. >>> + >> >> Only when customizing a group, it seems. They still show up when using >> customize-apropos (quite common), customize-saved (for an old setting, >> it could be somewhat common), or when asking to customize them directly >> (although that could be less common). I don't know what others think, >> but perhaps customize-saved should still show them: after all, it is a >> current user saved setting. > > Thanks, I overlooked that. > > I think `customize-option' and `customize-saved' should still show > them, indeed. > > Excluding the above, is `customize-apropos' otherwise an exhaustive list > of the commands where they would still be visible? There's customize-changed-options too. > I never use `customize-apropos', so what do you think makes sense for > that command? Should it still show it? To me, it makes sense that it follows what customize-group does, in this regard. >> Because of the above, perhaps it's too early to remove it? > > Perhaps, yes. I could just mention in its docstring that it's obsolete > instead, since I can't find any facilities to mark a defface obsolete. > Or maybe someone will enlighten me and tell me how it's done... But if one Custom buffer still shows obsolete options, wouldn't the face still be in use? >> And the same goes for this: if the option is still likely to pop up in >> some other Custom buffer, then this is useful information we might want >> to keep showing to the user. > > Good point. I'll take a look at what happens with `customize-option' in > particular, where we would want to mention that information. Why not in the current place?