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: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 16:27:01 +0200 Message-ID: <83im88lt56.fsf@gnu.org> References: <834kkcr1eo.fsf@gnu.org> <83im8qnyca.fsf@gnu.org> <83bleinmse.fsf@gnu.org> <56435592-d2d0-5fb6-977f-01e1931da835@gmx.at> <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> <83mtxqcauz.fsf@gnu.org> <83turva0y2.fsf@gnu.org> <8335ze2i93.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="10635"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: ghe@sdf.org, rudalics@gmx.at, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, juri@linkov.net To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 07 15:28:53 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 1kxWHV-0002ZO-2V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 15:28:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40794 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxWHU-0007vI-4i for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 09:28:52 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51968) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxWFr-0006f0-1k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 09:27:11 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:56368) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxWFq-0002yY-QB; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 09:27:10 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:3529 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kxWFh-0004sZ-A8; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 09:27:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Richard Stallman on Thu, 07 Jan 2021 02:52:59 -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:262680 Archived-At: > From: Richard Stallman > Cc: ghe@sdf.org, rudalics@gmx.at, juri@linkov.net, > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 02:52:59 -0500 > > > The proposed rule is very different: it says that if the announcement > > and the discussion didn't happen, the change cannot go in. > > That's not a big deal. Make the announcement, have the discussion, > and then the change can go in -- perhaps with the addition of a user > option to enable the change. We do all that already, just without the red tape. It is a big deal for me to add any unnecessary red tape, because it makes my already hard job significantly harder. > Since adding the user option variable is meant to be a general > solution, we may as well say that there's no need for the announcement > or the discussion if there is aleady a user option variable to enable > the change, and it is disabled by default. There we go: the slippery slope of having exceptions to the rule is already starting. We will be adding more and more exceptions, and then we will be endlessly discussing whether a given exception can or cannot be applied to a particular case. To what end?