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 16:09:15 +0200 Message-ID: <83v9c8ltys.fsf@gnu.org> References: <834kkcr1eo.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> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="2053"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rms@gnu.org, juri@linkov.net, rudalics@gmx.at, stefankangas@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Gregory Heytings Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 07 15:11:12 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 1kxW0N-0000OJ-Qx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 15:11:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41042 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxW0M-0003Qm-Nl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 09:11:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45540) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxVyg-00026B-Is for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 09:09:26 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:56041) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxVyb-0002JV-T3; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 09:09:23 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:2423 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kxVyU-0008Oq-IZ; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 09:09:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Gregory Heytings on Wed, 06 Jan 2021 23:57:02 +0000) 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:262673 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 23:57:02 +0000 > From: Gregory Heytings > cc: Stefan Monnier , rudalics@gmx.at, > Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, > juri@linkov.net > > Otherwise, you would have proposed a guideline. Which would be a fine proposal, and AFAICT equivalent to what we have already. > > Perhaps I did not look at the right place The right place to look is in the discussions of the various changes, where this guideline is voiced loud and clear. > but I do not see such a rule or guideline in CONTRIBUTE or elsewhere. What do you (and others) think of the following: CONTRIBUTE is not the right place for this. It is a document for contributors, not for Emacs maintainers, and it describes rules, not guidelines. It is also already too large, and we risk losing the attention of the "TL;DR" type of impatient readers. I'm not convinced that we should have a document with guidelines, IME it is very hard to formulate guidelines without risking too rigid interpretation by someone. > ... developers start working on something thinking that scratching the current state of affairs to create something they believe is better without thinking about backwards compatibility ... > > Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that this has happened? > > It happened with y-or-n-p The question was whether there's such a _tendency_, not whether there are exceptions from the rule. > It is happening in the "Stop frames stealing each other's minibuffers" thread No, it doesn't. In fact, the exact opposite happens there: an assumption that the existing behavior is a bug was later reversed based on feedback from you and others. > Again this would not have happened with the above guideline. Of course, it would: we will never have a rule to allow going back to buggy behavior, so as long as the past behavior is considered a bug, there can be no rule that prevents its removal without any compatibility shims. > My fear was that if the same request had been made by someone else it would have been dismissed Fear based on what? I invite you to read the discussions of such complaints, and see for yourself whether you have anything to that effect to fear of.