From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Emacs Survey: Toolbars Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:48:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <42b6e59c-de5a-440f-ab96-ea6d2e30e8a2@default> References: <87o8iv3ac3.fsf@gnus.org> <838s9zavcx.fsf@gnu.org> <87im92nmd6.fsf@gnus.org> <83y2hx91u1.fsf@gnu.org> <87czz9enc6.fsf@gmail.com> <83sg858yjr.fsf@gnu.org> <878s9wetdb.fsf@gmail.com> <81fd6785-f9b5-4926-9363-1d63f8672599@default> <5e031a6e-f94e-495e-a8cf-9e9db1544dbe@default> <877dpfcxp3.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="35121"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: eliz@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Christopher Dimech , Robert Pluim Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 18 18:50:11 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kqJtK-00090W-9m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 18:50:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48624 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kqJtJ-0006eO-AT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:50:09 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40078) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kqJrt-0005o2-Cn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:48:42 -0500 Original-Received: from userp2130.oracle.com ([156.151.31.86]:57524) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kqJro-0004yL-Qu; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:48:41 -0500 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0BIHiTJh086519; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 17:48:29 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=C0YHNcDd0lyEo6JlzT+m/7zazmUL8jKoriqjGcNQrHA=; b=TtgZt+hdZlaSFVEUEV2P+/BJgDm9fmBRC3u/gfqFMOovP28axPCOVTzdURX7QUdNXyDy PNz4nPmlYYtaGmglHhBTmp2H+EHAM/IFcMAT/CRGRnvv64PgRoSq/voJGCukUPfKFrt5 snYONGWPNggVgzaq0icTXOO7j6+ALc46LdfYqE+nFA/BL0vSb8nCFELRMzG6YHZh9BJD EZQrtGjx58TthoeWoAyXH7oeFOQckihVqeEm/IZAraPOKNRGHijc98CgOHs283WGXVAS bRt3HXqNLRMHr6GiJmQJs1cODjKggWuNEEFX5MCne3bWfVF3PfX9jqNqfvKT0hcqaHsH IA== Original-Received: from userp3020.oracle.com (userp3020.oracle.com [156.151.31.79]) by userp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 35cn9rufc0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 17:48:28 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0BIHjOua061771; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 17:48:28 GMT Original-Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by userp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 35g3rgergg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 17:48:28 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0019.oracle.com (abhmp0019.oracle.com [141.146.116.25]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0BIHmR2Z025169; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 17:48:27 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.5071.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9839 signatures=668683 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012180121 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9839 signatures=668683 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012180121 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=156.151.31.86; envelope-from=drew.adams@oracle.com; helo=userp2130.oracle.com X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:261214 Archived-At: > > The only disagreement is whether such an option should be enabled by > > default for changes made via the menus, I think. >=20 > That depends on whether we would people to experiment without messing > up their setup. For those who experiment with many problems. they > run the risk of forgetting how to revert to their previous configuration. > Perhaps writing the details in a file, and using that if they want to > revert back? Yes, that was a point I made. There are good arguments to be made both for and against auto-saving of option changes. My message of a few minutes ago elaborates on this. Providing for the possibility (choice) of auto-saving could be a good thing. Providing flexibility in such a user choice would be even better. IOW, even just a choice always/never save all options could be a step forward, but it's not the best possible solution. Options are not all the same, and users don't all use the same option the same way.