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: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 09:13:28 +0200 Message-ID: <83eeimbrl3.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> <8335z4dd7d.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="20211"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, rudalics@gmx.at, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, juri@linkov.net, drew.adams@oracle.com To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 15 08:20:08 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 1l0JOy-0005AC-J6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 08:20:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53714 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l0JOx-0001RX-LO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 02:20:07 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51380) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l0JIt-0007dX-3V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 02:13:51 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:40515) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l0JIq-0003jn-KO; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 02:13:48 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:1695 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1l0JIY-0003X4-EG; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 02:13:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Richard Stallman on Fri, 15 Jan 2021 00:28:06 -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:263068 Archived-At: > From: Richard Stallman > Cc: juri@linkov.net, rudalics@gmx.at, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, > larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com > Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 00:28:06 -0500 > > > 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. > > That is a valid conclusion, as regards experienced users. > > But surely that should not impede us from adding a user option > to get the old behavior -- if due to an omission we did not > make one. It doesn't impede us. Where adding an option is practical, it is certainly a good solution for such problems. The assumption I described above is a factor in the decision whether to revert a change, not whether to make it optional. The latter is a no-brainer where it's feasible.