From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: xenodasein--- via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Renaming eglot -- or at least add an alias? Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2022 11:33:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Reply-To: xenodasein@tutanota.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="6347"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com To: stefankangas@gmail.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 08 12:12:21 2022 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 1oh6of-0001SS-Nf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2022 12:12:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35516 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oh6od-00048r-NV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2022 06:12:19 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36452) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oh6Ch-0007MJ-Pl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2022 05:33:07 -0400 Original-Received: from w4.tutanota.de ([81.3.6.165]:33402) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oh6Cg-0003gO-1R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2022 05:33:07 -0400 Original-Received: from w3.tutanota.de (unknown [192.168.1.164]) by w4.tutanota.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 712271060159; Sat, 8 Oct 2022 09:33:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1665221582; s=s1; d=tutanota.de; h=From:From:To:To:Subject:Subject:Content-Description:Content-ID:Content-Type:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:Sender; bh=OpcvNRiJe+EihRL0DO7B4qs+boJzBdLPN+7nDF/vEg8=; b=182DnpUZmvU7DUBQjGhjHi0oR+/h1DUG+ALJg+MDYV+BoGazQbwaY+mo0vh7kOwL 0KyDX8nHUbkOut7WuLfm7hyto1q9YUA9smtNDLxxdPYDalSOxBSMsZBGkSG++sKgWW4 I4PjfpymBzmTMn3FeH2FZCCid/Iv1lAN86aps3j9NmlhIpG5qP6L9cXWPArT9WQst5U r10vJrKVFwDvWqlymgZuQCzUc+6/rHdZ2rVyZLwU/5JbgLFo4b8tniXYWDaKJG3+y98 6J6DDkXUOmDpbwhN3GHwsQQB19T1sq/Q+sigOqq6oTmq8f0O40F7FCTglGTO9U+IR2y +fD8YCN8hg== Received-SPF: pass client-ip=81.3.6.165; envelope-from=xenodasein@tutanota.de; helo=w4.tutanota.de 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 08 Oct 2022 06:11:15 -0400 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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:297198 Archived-At: > FWIW, > > The word "bikeshedding" often gets thrown around when someone tries to > find ways of making Emacs easier to use.=C2=A0 I don't think that is the = best > approach.=C2=A0 Ease of use often comes down to minor details, in themsel= ves > not a big deal, but that taken together will start to add up. > > I also think the claim that naming doesn't matter is wrong.=C2=A0 Naming = of > user facing features *does* matter, especially of important features > such as this one.=C2=A0 We have enough technical debt, quirks and histori= cal > baggage in Emacs as it is. I completely agree, what is out of place is that since there seems to be no desire to a unified naming scheme undertaking, and will probably never be one as there will always be something more important than "just cleaning things up" like emulating LibreOffice, only Eglot gets the ire of inconsistencies, and all the previous packages and likely most future ones will keep having unique names anyway, and this is not fair or nice. > Several people have argued the renaming case effectively, and I haven't > seen any need to add much beyond that.=C2=A0 But it's clear to me now tha= t we > haven't been able to find a significantly better name.=C2=A0 Given that t= here > is also a lot of opposition to renaming, I think I agree that, on > balance, it might be better to leave this alone. > > Long live Eglot.=C2=A0 I'm happy to see it merged. So IMO if there is a problem it lies deeper and not on naming choice of Eglot per se.