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: Confused by y-or-n-p Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:06:44 +0100 Message-ID: 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> 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="8356"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, juri@linkov.net To: Gregory Heytings , Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 06 12:07:24 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 1kx6ex-00023q-Fx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 12:07:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41490 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kx6ew-0005Va-Fw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 06:07:22 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33868) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kx6eO-0004xg-Tk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 06:06:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-pg1-x52d.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]:35316) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kx6eN-0007f4-Bd; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 06:06:48 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-pg1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id n7so2012488pgg.2; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 03:06:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DZoUI4KXFwZ/0r0N0mWt4aZJS+F8o0dGwMd7HRx8KWk=; b=ZX/yh6tqKyhe0PKZQMSjk+Ss+nL4DjbUELJ/g63iGN0MYb8BbJ/HqYj0DK+LFh1MdD HaD3c7f/Ck/5XxSZblDqfE2lYzMq7o8VVB239prKpcSI9GJ/boAJ6Z+0EvU9uBcMBbAL pdiGd5FfCjHtVUVL9pcu47w4xrh8Jb2KTnHEmyhSoner8aqdI9cTl8RaQ8oB519hJtLI c3uklnHhmps9Hr/r+S1MSRW+W7UHATRgDEkQUOVLo7q51yWlR4itVw03iDDF1U2P000M e6jCFlJarMcN8hL+S7U4bcUKPOKCUgqDQNj0d5pNbz67rUHyDWuM6rGMCbFyjRQihBbw sO2Q== 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=DZoUI4KXFwZ/0r0N0mWt4aZJS+F8o0dGwMd7HRx8KWk=; b=nrYOSfxASwzqy2wlO6dNZpKjKcm1L9BoLVk3sKzIuiY6A8JNNKi5Hd+S6WMoeq1Rka eh68ls9F8P8xKDm4JJAPP7xqcsUJcUqFuJEj6WGY7Zl0sgumToyP+DXPdxY/otuHwjrz B9JRFzLHhDLByuA0dzRrWWX6AJN3UzS875Lgpdfwi2x8KRHmlx7FVv1p8/B3ntCqLTJW J1BaXF9kD3SqnVBas+jgX4YTapvtjK9WPYmBPtGHaHm2+VFQjb32heNFjyrqSTJfpTQv CYGNvzIy/FUDXXMbB9N7PPDJCVqWI/asFcRGTUDB2tYGAsw4E5iHV2mqoY3tz+wNercn alKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532K+O0apNqVPcf3V1Ui6fbzPgueYx3w8kklupRdw3o1w3JCvqpQ 51Yc7TGiGDKrRcP0262dBbtp7qK56d52ARQUTIM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyrJcsgwxVgrF/8ZtFylwsDzAJ7KnPc4mt/wzA3gI8VmvLS1YegH8Y58Tjd1yQ39XFmaGtU1KlH7aYbQntuUh0= X-Received: by 2002:a63:e40e:: with SMTP id a14mr3963915pgi.345.1609931205197; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 03:06:45 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from 753933720722 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:06:44 +0100 In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d; envelope-from=stefankangas@gmail.com; helo=mail-pg1-x52d.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham 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:262589 Archived-At: Gregory Heytings via "Emacs development discussions." writes: > A rule is not a mathematical law, it's an action guideline. No, a rule is obviously stronger than a guideline. Otherwise, you would have proposed a guideline. Which would be a fine proposal, and AFAICT equivalent to what we have already. > ... 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? > By the way, the feedback in this case came from Richard, who wanted the > old behavior back, and he got it back in a few days. I'm curious whether > this would have happened if the feedback had been sent by a random user. Of course Richard's word has more weight than that of "a random user". This is expected in any project. (Guido in Python, Larry Wall in Perl, Linus in Linux, etc.) But in general, backwards compatibility complaints are taken seriously no matter the sender. In fact, this project sometimes goes to extreme lengths simply to maintain backwards-compatibility even in the most minor and inconsequential cases. But of course on occasion we trip up: we don't pay enough attention to this aspect, or we take it much too far. Both are equally bad, IMHO. To my mind, we need to take a balanced view. I don't see how a hard rule (or even a soft one) will help us do that better.