From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs 26.1 release branch created Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 22:35:44 +0300 Message-ID: <83377ecyr3.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83377mls4d.fsf@gnu.org> <20170919173511.GA19168@ACM> <20170921205447.GA8240@ACM> <83tvzvcidg.fsf@gnu.org> <20170922184159.GB7229@ACM> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1506108992 14060 195.159.176.226 (22 Sep 2017 19:36:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 19:36:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 22 21:36:22 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dvTkI-0002sX-B1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 21:36:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60762 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dvTkO-0001Il-0j for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:36:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50366) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dvTkE-0001H0-T2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:36:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dvTkB-0003Ke-Nj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:36:14 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:46636) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dvTkB-0003KY-Jh; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:36:11 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4884 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1dvTk2-0002rd-Ku; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:36:04 -0400 In-reply-to: <20170922184159.GB7229@ACM> (message from Alan Mackenzie on Fri, 22 Sep 2017 18:41:59 +0000) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:218703 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 18:41:59 +0000 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org > From: Alan Mackenzie > > I thought the issues through carefully before investing time and energy > in it. So did I. And I'm sure John did as well. Let's please assume that everybody involved in this discussion have their positions carefully thought through. > You talk about backward incompatibility. Well, backward incomptibility > is only bad when it inconveniences users, which is most of the time. It > isn't the case here. Neither of you, nor Paul has suggested a scenario > in which a user might suffer. I put it to you that there aren't any, > particularly considering how text-quoting-style was kept away from > ordinary users in Emacs 25. Why do we need a scenario? This variable existed in its current semantics since Emacs 25.1, released more than a year ago. It was introduced on the-then master a year before that. Which means it's in use for more than 2 years now. Changing its semantics in incompatible ways at this time would need a _very_ good reason. IOW, it's _you_ who needs to provide us with convincing scenarios where the current values cause serious trouble, so serious that backward-incompatible change is a must. > So, I'm asking you once more to consider very carefully the issues > behind my proposed amendment. For my part, I undertake to accept your > decision on the matter without further argument, and to change the code > in scratch/customize-quotes to the simple change you were expecting, > should you say no again. Please do, and thanks.