Re: Results of C-x C-q poll

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

    More than half of those who responded prefer the existing behaviour,
    so I don't see how removing the functionality will satify their
    wishes.

Each alternative, including the status quo, was disliked by more than
half the respondents.  People advanced various reasons for what they
liked or disliked, showing us various kinds of problems in various
situations.  These problems are all different--they have different
severity.  The point here is to choose something that leaves the
smallest remaining problems, and in fewer cases.  The solution I
stated appears to be that.

In years of experience I've found that "let's give the user an option"
often acts as an easy way out, a way to avoid thinking hard about
doing the right thing by default.  Therefore I'm on guard against it;
I resist the pressure and insist on continuing to work on a good
default that will mean not so many people need to customize it.

In this case, "make it configurable" is not just a way of avoiding the
issue, it is a no-op.  This is already configurable; you can bind C-x
C-q to toggle-read-only or vc-toggle-read-only.  Providing a good
default is the only issue here.