From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: Risky local variable mechanism
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:04:09 -0500
Message-ID: <E1F4t7B-0007K2-CS@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <E1F44ct-0001DA-7E@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<873bj3x12d.fsf@stupidchicken.com>
	<E1F4Vt1-0005cr-Mu@fencepost.gnu.org> <85slr2krwb.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>
	<m33bj1lsk8.fsf@kfs-l.imdomain.dk>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138943207 22572 80.91.229.2 (3 Feb 2006 05:06:47 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 05:06:47 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 03 06:06:45 2006
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165])
	by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1F4t9f-0000P9-0N
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 06:06:43 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1F4tCo-0003wJ-5E
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:09:58 -0500
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1F4tBS-0002od-5g
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:08:34 -0500
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1F4tBR-0002oM-KE
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:08:33 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4tBR-0002oI-Cr
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:08:33 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1F4tAO-0003QJ-Ge
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:07:28 -0500
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1F4t7B-0007K2-CS; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:04:09 -0500
Original-To: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm)
In-reply-to: <m33bj1lsk8.fsf@kfs-l.imdomain.dk> (storm@cua.dk)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:49954
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/49954>

    Will someone please explain how emacs 22.1 will be less safe than 21.4
    if we don't change this "risky business" before the release.

This is a serious problem; that it is not new is no reason to accept it.