From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thibaut Verron Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding. Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 10:11:28 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87zh0mmr54.fsf@gmail.com> <87y2g5smya.fsf@gmail.com> <4FF55FBF-573D-4A70-B3FC-682CA25B7ECB@gnu.org> <83lfc53whk.fsf@gnu.org> <20210203180142.seu6o3i6u7jhkyrh@Ergus> <83eehx3to5.fsf@gnu.org> <20210203221628.xgvvxjvh56gyswba@Ergus> <20210204070033.pm4ido4hq7a6twif@Ergus> <83sg6brhyg.fsf@gnu.org> <83v9b7orny.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: thibaut.verron@gmail.com 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="5040"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 05 10:12:34 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 1l7xAI-0001Co-Ev for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 10:12:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44460 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7xAH-0006bN-H8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 04:12:33 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:32940) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7x9K-0005Wd-OP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 04:11:34 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2d]:36755) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7x9H-0004Yc-PK; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 04:11:34 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com with SMTP id c3so6078824ybi.3; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 01:11:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=JdzRp7kI3/hiERD8RTZQvUhcCKyXBZLnZJzeLzeHEaI=; b=ObFtxiwWd4bVmrB9ugtGx37QvZ5baeehKTmNvt6rWXagidqwJDbt78k6SjQQKmtLkN Co91tP7r05VvME4/x3vuDn/MKAe6D1obg8xau7K5WdslZalaIM+dFljYz6AVUVD6O5Ta zfPrmn/PSLU1DTu8JgPakvxb7QcCALFjn7YuWOOwUugIPdPPxF5F5rZBVflmu3L8T0Kc KjzqweymvG87UmJDhVcW9+SDQMqZHqOUSHmzhfVPfZ3iFHDeoL/2DfoB5HiNjb8aHkBv fAqsqlQPmDDg4kus9saotK4aP2/om7vRHkwBU2NGo5T7MLAp2W41eQl1VL6yR/ENyMaz A9bw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JdzRp7kI3/hiERD8RTZQvUhcCKyXBZLnZJzeLzeHEaI=; b=kMjTftR01Bp5oLVyMgfbngHb+tYNzskarPT0GVS8iL3zeBpECYS3QhrV8p+w9PEAxz KaGareP9sbfQoVXgZUBuPyDtaPRAMSRs8paa1SLgxFW3gXwvwOutxdSfxAtJ/KlCxMhe DzetKILwKtMvmsBhJ4HZv7ER4y/NBMoyF7mLtHe55T9Tx/mWZjzuIk/THS1CdJjOuuDa RZUe5TjX3Rlf1Cayj/u1lzDFp7ZVYj7ZFl5etxIRe7qcqGUdvLaK9zKrkE79eE+A6//5 Ba9152wprMAL0R2JXmj+SjXxXX4A5LETy1+h2UBooP+XxTMrR9dbpsdbT2zv+oNwWH/J 2ZMg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531gifv58aNd6tiVw1egCVLzJ/PTIWUdvmctR8kzRqmibv1AMLRc CQ2tA7taph1ismrfJq0RboKlTbNe9GKYxJ7nyMeWnkR302k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyn4rtsarWO0KuONmBSFvnEy+OgbncB+t7J0wRw+GJ5piMJB/OS52k35KRyhva9LBNdCqvWCjj+kZXMFR7tvig= X-Received: by 2002:a25:6d8a:: with SMTP id i132mr5129704ybc.337.1612516289289; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 01:11:29 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 2002:a05:7110:6187:b029:31:9798:b166 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 01:11:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83v9b7orny.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2d; envelope-from=thibaut.verron@gmail.com; helo=mail-yb1-xb2d.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:263955 Archived-At: 2021-02-05 9:16 UTC+01:00, Eli Zaretskii : >> From: Richard Stallman >> Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2021 00:49:22 -0500 >> Cc: eliz@gnu.org, kevin.legouguec@gmail.com, stefankangas@gmail.com, >> spacibba@aol.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> More than that. Over that time, how often have people >> asked for such a global binding? > > We never bother ourselves with such questions; never did. We consider > ourselves to be aware and familiar enough with the Emacs usage > landscape to make such decisions without polling users on each and > every step, because doing so would slow down development to an > unbearable crawl. I always believed that at least part of the reasons > we were nominated as maintainers was that people trust us to be > capable of representing the bulk of Emacs users, and do it well enough > to avoid too many serious mistakes. I think this hits the nail right on. Some of us (myself included) believe that this change underestimates how many Emacs users do not consider C-x g to be a free-to-take binding. > In a case such as this one, when one of the maintainers says "this > makes sense", I expect to hear technical arguments for or against that > (btw, only agreements were heard when the original decision in this > case was made), but I do NOT expect to hear "go ask the world because > you don't really know what you are talking about". Without going as far as making a formal poll, I don't think it's unreasonable to be as careful for binding a new key as we are for rebinding an existing key. This community has achieved a bit of a "conservative" reputation on the latter, which may explain the surprise at how apparently light-handed the same decision can be taken for a "free" key. Besides, technical arguments were also brought forward: making revert-buffer too easy-to-reach is dangerous, modes which need frequent revert-buffer already bind it (directly or by inheriting from special), there is auto-revert-mode, binding free keys will necessarily break some users' configuration, the chosen key conflicts with a major 3rd party package in a way which will break its users' configuration. As far as I can tell, the suggestion of a poll was only metaphorical, as in "do we really need this in view of the drawbacks?". > In all the 30 years of my uninterrupted active involvement with Emacs > development, I don't remember even a single instance of polling users > before making user-visible decisions. (I may have missed one or two, > but it cannot be more than that.) I'm astonished to hear such demands > now. If this is indeed what's required from Emacs maintainers, I will > seriously consider resigning, because I cannot in good faith support > such ridiculous development practices, let alone such level of > mistrust towards my and Lars's experience and knowhow. I can only speak for myself, but I absolutely trust that all maintainers know the Emacs community far better than I do.