From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Concern about bikeshedding. Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 19:42:35 +0000 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="29662"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 05 20:43:32 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 1l870t-0007aw-GN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 20:43:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34194 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l870s-00047k-JD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 14:43:30 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53288) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l8705-0003QW-TE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 14:42:41 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:42261 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l8703-0006Ge-R4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 14:42:41 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 51816 invoked by uid 3782); 5 Feb 2021 19:42:36 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe15ba0.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.91.160]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 20:42:35 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 13545 invoked by uid 1000); 5 Feb 2021 19:42:35 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.1; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mail.muc.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, 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:264004 Archived-At: Hello, Emacs. In the last few days on this list there has been a thread "Concern about new binding.". This thread now has nearly 200 posts in it. Now, it is entirely legitimate to have raised the issue in the first place. The possible courses of action are limited to, perhaps, five or ten, so why have we nearly 200 posts in the thread? I also have my view on the matter, but have held back from expressing it. Concerning a key binding for revert-buffer, there is no particularly good solution, and no particularly bad one either. There is surely nothing proposed that nobody could live with. The main point - it is profoundly unimportant what decision is reached on it. We should trust our head maintainer, Eli, to make this decision, which we should then respect. Should we really expect Eli to spend so much of his limited time trawling through threads like this one, responding to many, if not most of the posts? I say we should show a bit more consideration, and hold off from such bikeshedding. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).