From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Imports / inclusion of s.el into Emacs Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 21:44:58 +0300 Message-ID: <5f557d99-3f3d-a2cc-8d46-da05c2c53c83@yandex.ru> References: <831ro2tqqx.fsf@gnu.org> <4a1fd3f4-df92-c756-9874-4d07b54148ac@yandex.ru> <3bd09dca-dcdc-7569-e5fb-f6b53397af9d@yandex.ru> <83pnbjokdt.fsf@gnu.org> <2b9f91bb-e233-e24b-27d3-384dd66c4e8d@yandex.ru> <83sggfmwig.fsf@gnu.org> <34bf7b60-6959-47e5-e27c-d00627ab1782@yandex.ru> <83pnbjmuxd.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="33861"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 Cc: yandros@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, joaotavora@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon May 04 20:45:52 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 1jVg6B-0008g5-7G for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 04 May 2020 20:45:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33304 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVg6A-0007mW-9w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 04 May 2020 14:45:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40040) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVg5R-0007Cu-Q9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 May 2020 14:45:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wm1-x32f.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::32f]:52803) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVg5Q-0003Bk-0H; Mon, 04 May 2020 14:45:05 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-wm1-x32f.google.com with SMTP id 188so635621wmc.2; Mon, 04 May 2020 11:45:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QOve2EKnOCQMKrX7ldz4sxyVWP59mgkcnB3I5BiiJPE=; b=P5KXLVrDN2AlSj+VLZpFrkCIjDGX2Pch6fSSUUqY6Rhzu3tBRhgk8nPepkpd7CGr/n SMefAQYA4UxgWE/fLfUMz3NXPMXOZF1bXO5Mb6QlgT4pGaOlJSNFgRSWgWV3BuhjDACC 0GsNWFb3YNivOxVZs5i9tQ7xbd13yiCAZflPXgCgFUjpLsOYYp6MT1lLgcfszlVVHsKD elcyNRhlmbQI1RRPPK/m1e7G6aDDB/EGk/JU8/YgVD4DvhubO6oRO7C/xpQlH1iC+Yd+ gs93bkk0HpzdC9E3sBysqbKO11pEhGp0YHzicWbEDe53eQ3CI+s5QyW4SJREP7KL7a2v XgTg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QOve2EKnOCQMKrX7ldz4sxyVWP59mgkcnB3I5BiiJPE=; b=LBwpdBjUlAi/h4/jmoPfPbdD4FdbzaJe8AR+uGnm1d2whz6wbVPcp/dmLH2JlbZQvx IjqqcAMA/P6x09phxBeNyq4gMBNYB32kmZKgFeWKEb37Yc45/qE0TIMGCjvvxBfSRJ4l uMiH4VffC8OOEWozGF5m8QS1nekjlJuQefDDYwZBbS3yWgcKGDEImJeEuomGGC8k4ztG HvoDMwHMKB55NVtmMfoWyqW9Vlf2GBJOwfVIXG4PUSRGJ91t4oD07+zFKU+MlQQq7kof hYU+gIVpRmKghd+6G0hlvIs8F1wo5E3Xtt6PKtzyZpVq8iQAXXDsiK0N2bV/Gw+IlDIh m7vQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYuf7iDMXGbskrUXUu+nE0wBl8o1I1ofPj2myXmEl+8vJDuAKrw 5uU8AjZUKchaqQBwiVc2EhQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJDBAqtH5g4vYTjKZaojuKBz4NR3U6YS+jHLPamyzwVC9SR1w0p161DgZJRmnjYt9+5r8D7mA== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:4603:: with SMTP id t3mr15907603wma.103.1588617901884; Mon, 04 May 2020 11:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.0.3] ([66.205.73.129]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id h6sm438965wmf.31.2020.05.04.11.45.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 04 May 2020 11:45:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83pnbjmuxd.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Language: en-US Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::32f; envelope-from=raaahh@gmail.com; helo=mail-wm1-x32f.google.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: No matching host in p0f cache. That's all we know. X-Spam_score_int: -17 X-Spam_score: -1.8 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN 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:248899 Archived-At: On 04.05.2020 21:11, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Of many discussion about changing default behavior that I've seen, the >> vast majority have failed. > > Then you only remember the ones that led to nothing because we didn't > do anything but talk. Others, where some change did arrive, contained a lot of talk as well. >>> A recent example: the :extend >>> face attribute. >> >> It's an interesting counter-example. First, it did little to change the >> actual functionality, just the looks. > > The reaction to this "little change" could have fooled me. In your opinion at the time it was little, IIRC. One of the reasons it got in, I guess. >> Second, there were no noticeable consensus, inside or outside the >> core, that the new behavior is better > > Not true. There was complete consensus among those who discussed the > feature before it went into implementation. Among the 2-3 people who participated in the highly technical bug-report/discussion about the display engine? Please be serious. That doesn't reflect the opinions even across emacs-devel, much less the community at large. And once we found out the backward compatibility problem, and all the associated details, there was still one solution available: revert. That's what we usually do when we don't manage to fix a regression before a release, don't we? >> (I've mostly seen dissenting feedback, but the split is probably more >> like 50/50). But apparently you liked it well enough because it made >> Emacs's behavior more compatible with other software _you_ were familiar >> with, that even breaking the expectations of a lot of our users, or >> having to force all theme authors to update their themes (until I came >> along with a fix) wasn't price too high. > > So what is the lesson you suggest to take out of this example, in the > context of "adapting"? Maybe that backward compatibility is not as important as some people like to claim? Other lessons would be less kind to type out. In any case, I don't see that particular change affecting the experience of new Emacs users much one way or another (as long as all the themes work). Thus it's not a great example of Emacs "adapting" to contemporary user expectations.