Re: Differences between ibuffer and dired

[Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:
>> >> While we are looking at this:
>> >
>> > You mean making some keys more consistent between ibuffer
>> > and dired?  See Subject line.
>> >
>> >> Wasn't there a discussion before about putting ibuffer on C-x C-b?
>> >
>> > ? No connection with the current subject.
>> >
>> >> I don't remember, someone had something to
>> >> say about this. Was it Juri?
>> >
>> > 1. Why?
>> > 2. Why would you bring that up here, in this discussion?
>>
>> I think you want to say that for you it is easier to keep those
>> subjects separate. I can try to remember to respect that, but for me
>> it is easier to do it the way I did it here.
>>
>> There are simply different thinking styles.
>
> _I_ think I want to say that you introduced a different subject.  And that
> subject would be better discussed in a different thread.

Yes, I know that.

> That point I made is not about thinking styles.
> It's about mailing-list organization and etiquette.

I know that too, and I agree, but maybe we think differently about
what should be exceptions. (Some messages from you recently made me
think so.)

> Use any thinking style you like.  FWIW, I appreciate your thinking style.

Oh, thanks. All our thinking styles are needed. I am very glad we do
different things so we can try to sum it up to something better than
each of us can do alone. (It is not only about the amount of work we
put in.)

> But
> please try harder not to hijack threads (yes, we are all occasionally guilty of
> that).

I will try, but to me it seems most important to not hijack the thread
if things are complicated. But I know from here and daily
conversations that we are all very different when it comes to this.

> FYI - Today alone, you also injected a proposal to add a new menu-bar menu to
> consolidate all minor-mode menus into a thread about possibly including
> anything.el in Emacs.  No connection.

No connection for you. Yes. But for me it is a natural response to the
question where to put the menu.

Answering and proposing another way at the same time saves time in my
opinion. Or should I say in my thinking/conversation style.

But this style does not always work. All centrally involved in the
discussion must be prepared for it. Otherwise it is, as I think you
suggest, disorganizing.

> Except perhaps that something you read in
> one of that thread's mails reminded you that you had proposed that menu before,
> so you proposed it again.  It's OK to bring that up again, but please just use a
> new thread.

That would defeat the purpose here.

> This is a pattern, and IMHO it's not helpful.  Should we be reduced to having
> just one thread for everything, entitled "poubelle", "catch-all", "X" or
> "Lennart"?

I am not sure which name is best.

> Think about it, please.  Even in your thinking style you might realize that your
> new topics will be better treated and easier to find later if you keep them
> separate.

I think we mostly forget old threads. What I did try here was to link
things in a way that made both subjects more understandable.

> It's easy to do.  Copy as much of the original context that made you
> think of the new topic as you want.  Just change the Subject line so we know
> what the topic is.  Thx.

Yes, it is good to do, but this was such a small thing in my opinion.
I did not really want to start a discussion about my suggestion, just
mention it in context. (Discussion about menu related things tend to
lead nowhere and I believe it is partly because we are not prepared
for the discussion since menus has not been mentioned in contexts
where it could have been appropriate.)