From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Kangas Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master 1b0a922 1/2: Make M-x show obsolete commands (Bug#43300) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 03:33:18 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20200913130614.15564.25449@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20200913130616.6B79C20B2C@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="8558"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 18 12:34:08 2020 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 1kJDiS-00025n-9i for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:34:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57894 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kJDiR-0001F7-4w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 06:34:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33678) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kJDhi-0000NL-Bn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 06:33:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ej1-f51.google.com ([209.85.218.51]:37982) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kJDhg-0004xM-Pb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 06:33:22 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ej1-f51.google.com with SMTP id i22so7439529eja.5 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 03:33:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EBji20ntxPMm4/fR5NIgamkJzkLwScP+T7JoCLzqZFY=; b=NVB8kreBmUHZ7Wqa9sNEHCY7BkXBwfAJuy3klfkMJN3RyGepeLWCfZ9qZoZS3R8YqU oB1IoOUUVVdGj0QB1pGCqgtG1VCawasaFFvq5OuxNKppkkTWHpu8jdJZ5oClbt9+cgPq 4zquEglneZBVoSyMfarAZkL2YzjYqo5noovHkxr2TDeWIXs7LRb5f4P34S1UqC39GWtq Nk70A8LZtu3CJPWO/2BsmLLKHjqtWRnpEKij3chwtnBYWJvnj8H9MQBx54veVAku5RYh ciidNIulzntWdWvz0zH9iNwk/oXiL3Qm1Y4FEEUHPhB1vgWrqFDxCg6kvKPtPe8HPCGs NIyw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5307yH+BY4SVeAVJwz7Tp2ILbZ04QZq67p6x8zAyTNPjtkbq1RGr miXk/usk/7FcaR4dQ/1Mrf9hE+CI3CdLd0IVOCg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyPePUlDDfhwBYwzy/BDJbyiYzZbFLxvjVF39ThjOoLuWe9GdB//wHmde333Gt/BWrsIozK6N5sfBTDsEoZ5cQ= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:a88a:: with SMTP id ha10mr37351100ejb.532.1600425199365; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 03:33:19 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from 753933720722 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 03:33:18 -0700 In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.218.51; envelope-from=stefankangas@gmail.com; helo=mail-ej1-f51.google.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/09/18 06:33:19 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -13 X-Spam_score: -1.4 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:256071 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: > I think this doesn't push users away from obsolete commands > strongly enough. If removing them from the list of completions is not > an option any more, then maybe we could/should force a kind of > "confirmation". e.g. `M-x RET` would emit a short > "Really call obsolete `obsolete-command`?" and wait for an extra RET > before going ahead. I think your proposal sounds good, and I have no objection. But do we really need to be that forceful about pushing users away from obsolete commands? I had hoped that a gentle nudge in the right direction would be enough, especially given the long time that will pass before a command is finally removed.