From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Confused by y-or-n-p Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:16:38 +0200 Message-ID: <8335z4dd7d.fsf@gnu.org> References: <834kkcr1eo.fsf@gnu.org> <87k0t38g1z.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83czyvkts6.fsf@gnu.org> <87bleetirr.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87y2hhri3n.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83pn2tkfg8.fsf@gnu.org> <871rf7ippu.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83a6trg6mc.fsf@gnu.org> <87im8f951f.fsf@gnus.org> <83lfdacapo.fsf@gnu.org> <87im8d6q4q.fsf@gnus.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="34723"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: juri@linkov.net, rudalics@gmx.at, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 13 17:19:29 2021 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 1kzirn-0008qs-4b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:19:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60652 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kzirm-0003kk-64 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 11:19:26 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55498) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kzipK-0000UD-SG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 11:16:55 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:59002) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kzipJ-00045I-ED; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 11:16:53 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:4345 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kzip8-00010z-0d; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 11:16:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Richard Stallman on Wed, 13 Jan 2021 10:57:36 -0500) 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:263037 Archived-At: > From: Richard Stallman > Cc: larsi@gnus.org, rudalics@gmx.at, eliz@gnu.org, > emacs-devel@gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com, juri@linkov.net > Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 10:57:36 -0500 > > The reason I think it matters whether the discussion happens > before the next release, or after, is that I was told that > after a release there is a presumption in favor of not reverting > the change that was made. It adds up to a bureaucratic pitfall you > can get stuck in for not reading all the bug report mail. > > We can't please everyone, but it is especially frustrating to be told > that your complaint will be disregarded because it is too late. We never disregard such complaints. We just need a stronger reason to make the change in that case, and it should be stronger as the time since releasing the offending feature becomes longer. The assumption is that if we didn't have a complaint during all the time the features was on the development branch and then in the pretests, it probably means most people are okay with it.