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: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496) Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 20:36:47 +0300 Message-ID: <83y1m4j8wg.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87bkj1ar9n.fsf@yahoo.com> <7e6334ce-c9a3-2c58-d263-fa962f0c2f7d@web.de> <877ctocfpq.fsf@telefonica.net> <831qjwkrkt.fsf@gnu.org> <87354ccat0.fsf@telefonica.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="27758"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar?= Fuentes Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu May 04 19:43:17 2023 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 1pucz7-00071f-3F for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 04 May 2023 19:43:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pucsG-0000pB-Od; Thu, 04 May 2023 13:36:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pucs3-0000cS-4p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 May 2023 13:36:00 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pucs2-0004Tv-AD; Thu, 04 May 2023 13:35:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=BvbTdTgVHc93Y2jS9b+BoqIFlWVCWDElP8BvzWTGK5M=; b=Qb+NeCpTDuUj56do/Slb xBVVKkR5aYU8tnbRcwbcz5bIDE+Qky5TzhcRk8ucvP7jqhyM7rSRHm+nd7fSW4XIQnj7zUcXkgFyI oovWRGrDM+BBs5ATHl4hB3L1hIzu3rq2zh3/nkEtJRwOUO1+JrPItYfr2/EOWHvwwcdoVugR8qRic TBe2JCmQ1Zhi9R3kzVHUucOowK5WaWdEuhv1/IJg7O7+1T7RbTZ/rHevjF88Vp/MRdbXgqLC7JxzS HjXwawfoNmig9jxFvNwhECkS0gjdlbOowY9UpkIGd3T76L6T6BQYQHgtCYaOEvteXY2hIAnOdncIW cHqcgVNHQANlwQ==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pucs1-0000R9-0M; Thu, 04 May 2023 13:35:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87354ccat0.fsf@telefonica.net> (message from =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar?= Fuentes on Thu, 04 May 2023 18:37:31 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:305837 Archived-At: > From: Óscar Fuentes > Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 18:37:31 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> Rejecting "___ or minimized" on the docs only works nowadays if the goal > >> is obfuscating things. > > > > We don't reject it. Please, both of you, make a point of actually > > looking at our manuals before starting argument about problems that > > don't exist. This is a tempest in a teapot. > > I know *we* don't reject it, but the patch submitter was told otherwise > in an official tone. He was asked to use one term of the two possible ones, with a reason behind the request presented as part of it. > I'm glad that the issue has been clarified. Also, I hope that in the > future we double-check the project's policies before stating to > contributors (actual and potential) what's the acceptable way of doing > things here. I cannot (and won't) prevent people here from expressing their opinions, including on terminology. The line between "official tone" and an opinion of a developer is thin and fine, and is not always clearly visible, especially when two people are communicating in a language that isn't the first one for any of them. All I can do is ask people to take extra care when they express opinions that are not necessarily codified, as I did in this case more than once. Eventually, if a contributor was told something they are uncomfortable with, and wants to know whether it's policy, he or she will have to ask about that explicitly, and then they will have their answer.