From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Mathias Dahl" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs manual mentioning thumbs mode but not tumme Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:01:28 +0200 Message-ID: <7dbe73ed0704130201n1c365d4cy9635c1e84886a710@mail.gmail.com> References: <87slb8szz9.fsf@debby.local.net> <17947.65334.841905.101671@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <17949.22877.645175.478069@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <17950.43941.498605.877229@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <876481t7mu.fsf@debby.local.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1176454927 4150 80.91.229.12 (13 Apr 2007 09:02:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:02:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Nick Roberts , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Dieter Wilhelm" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 13 11:01:53 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HcHfA-0006BK-0s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:01:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HcHjO-0002kd-Eo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:06:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HcHjJ-0002kV-7V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:06:05 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HcHjH-0002jo-MH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:06:04 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HcHjH-0002ji-I4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:06:03 -0400 Original-Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.232]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HcHf0-00072z-3u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:01:38 -0400 Original-Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i23so797504wra for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:01:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Ke1GxbnF+9jManoRRRbrKctk0g8RBRw6AWnl19vWc3SbBzjiv2MIl4MTLoK8jjmwDp3kD3wKRnV/nIvUlP8S/lmcpcYMq5Wmqc1ujc3oFh21VIriq9PohuLDWidhNC1Eck1uwSdN6TxBlLoWFelT0R37WlieasiT0F50MH3bTks= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=orAyPW+XFyUn/SQP0NahM2MlTR4oLfNcOFIn7x7mRnG6L2dCIvRd0cwJiyJBMXEOG9cXZa0ZrzusBFOcRdsfywMguVNln0JQ5QlA9WjTaJcP3sz93AKl+1UHNfopeZyuK99TrR3Zg0SglGKqMMDrOfRryq3YOQc+myZ1Ng7RgHc= Original-Received: by 10.78.201.2 with SMTP id y2mr581943huf.1176454888298; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:01:28 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.78.12.17 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:01:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <876481t7mu.fsf@debby.local.net> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 (Google crawlbot) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:69377 Archived-At: > The point for retaining thumbs is that one can't please everybody with > one approach. > ... > From a user's perspective I think offering choice > outstrips every other disadvantage concerning maintainability, > consistency, etc. That might be true in many situations. However, Thumbs and Tumme are very similar, feature-wise. There are some differences in how things are implemented which I do not think is very important. My opinion is that if there are functions in Thumbs that isn't in Tumme, we should add them in Tumme. Or, we could do the opposite, but I think that will take more work. > There might be users who dislike tumme's name and > "unnecessary overhead" and ... I know those were just examples of things people might dislike, but I don't think they were very good ones. The name, for example, could be changed. We could have an alias called `thumbs' which would call `tumme', if we wanted (if Thumbs was to be removed). About the overhead, well, as long as the user does not see it, what's the problem? ... Anyway, my main point is that it feels like a waste of resources to keep both packages. The packages are very similar so I don't buy the "choice" argument. The choice argument would be a better one if we talked about the different MUAs, for example, which seems very different in some cases. About things that are missing in Tumme regards to what is there in Thumbs: Tumme works for what I use it for, not strange considering I made it to support what I want to do. This means I don't have a very strong "itch" to merge more things into Tumme.