From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Alfred M. Szmidt" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Suggested experimental test Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:14:55 -0400 Message-ID: References: <831ba60af0cbfdd95686@heytings.org> <87mtuxj8ue.fsf@gnus.org> <9088e12cb3169cdcdbc4@heytings.org> <9088e12cb3a70cbf66aa@heytings.org> <9088e12cb381e11e6d32@heytings.org> <9088e12cb36020430ea2@heytings.org> <271290d7aa5560786ded@heytings.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="33102"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Gregory Heytings Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 22 19:18:39 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 1lOP8R-0008RG-Gu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 19:18:39 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45624 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOP8Q-0002A6-DM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:18:38 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57720) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOP4v-0000YZ-Og for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:15:01 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:36067) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOP4v-0001ob-Gt; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:15:01 -0400 Original-Received: from ams by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lOP4p-0003hW-Tu; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:15:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <271290d7aa5560786ded@heytings.org> (message from Gregory Heytings on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 10:05:19 +0000) 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:266775 Archived-At: That doesn't answer the main question: how do you concretely poll these users? and what would you consider to be a significant enough fraction of Emacs users for the poll to be representative? Would 500 answers be enough? 1000? 5000? 10000? I don't have the link at hand, but RMS had posted how to do exactly this time of poll. I can try to locate it for you if you want. What would you do with the result of such a poll? What if only 50 or 100 in those 10000 answer "yes"? Should the feature be kept for those 50 or 100? The idea behind a poll is to gather some data and get an idea of the overal situation. emacs-devel isn't a very good place for such information. Moreover the result of a yes/no poll like "Do you use M-o (frobnicate-line)?" is not very useful: What is the issue understanding those answers? They give some insight as to what users might prefer and what they do. > so one could accumulate a set of proposal in release 20, send it out > during release 21, and delibrate and implement for 22. That would be unrealistic, it would mean a four to six years waiting period before an UI change can be implemented, long enough to discourage anyone in advance to even envision the possibility of proposing such a change. Would that be a bad thing? Why is there such a hurry to change _existing_ behaviour, or specifically _removing_ existing behaviour? We aren't talking about every single UI change. Emacs is stable, and significant changes in the UI should take time (I consider C-o to be more significant than M-o -- which at least when it got modified the key got a different useful meaning). >> Fortunately, such changes are easy to revert for users who would >> dislike them, and the way to revert them is documented in the >> NEWS file. > > From my experience, it isn't the case. Of course it is, for example the way to revert the M-o change is documented in the NEWS file, both for those who would like to only revert facemenu, and for those who would like to only revert the two center-foo commands. We are misscommunicating, I am talking about restoring the previous behaviour in Emacs, not on a per user basis. The point here is that the suggestions have been removing featues, without replacing them. exit-recursive-edit got moved to a different binding, and the semantics of C-c got changed to something useful.