From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Recentish C-s M-y change Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2021 11:10:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <<<87r1na4tyu.fsf@gnus.org>>> <<<87tus6tj7s.fsf@mail.linkov.net>>> <<<87a6txigm1.fsf@gnus.org>>> <<<874kk5lzew.fsf@mail.linkov.net>>> <<>> <<<87eej8ifll.fsf@mail.linkov.net>>> <<>> <<<87h7o3k5b5.fsf@mail.linkov.net>>> <<>> <<>> <> <> <<83wnwwg8iu.fsf@gnu.org>> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="5551"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com, juri@linkov.net To: Eli Zaretskii , "Alfred M. Szmidt" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 01 20:14:20 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 1kvPsS-0001MG-U3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 01 Jan 2021 20:14:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43272 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kvPsR-0008HC-Vj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 01 Jan 2021 14:14:19 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37780) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kvPrL-0007RP-E3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jan 2021 14:13:13 -0500 Original-Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:37224) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kvPrJ-0001i0-Oh; Fri, 01 Jan 2021 14:13:11 -0500 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 101J5gPV069523; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 19:13:07 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=J2Aiztt3FM0RH2O84IPNlgSmuMeFX0pGx1TqzqlDZzc=; b=ba1cvRXyOe3XZ1s5q2UINATqGbAAynHlMlP/YlemqMD3k4PwLUWJ9njRObFTuZmNKDrF UekXdfZS2O9N4fE3rqUOr17Iy+lRWMoPUaPPUGCZ1EmRtJSsS7hvyaaeElkIKidV4CbW XiVTtqi4Ogi4e8Q/C26gM2otqrrWWDO9zPN4W0bCiH2bgvBw7D+n5bKitgVuH2DY6n32 lPV4W3KVud+8y7sterDLFP5LiGvVg3upCWwLKMf9PT1i1zFcuPARPGqb8zfn6Coorz0b pDN+2j/OtwoePrghFD5RHgmvSOo6L5FcrFv9VeAk+H6MA+Lgr0dA+vyItdhlD+mwz08e Bw== Original-Received: from userp3030.oracle.com (userp3030.oracle.com [156.151.31.80]) by aserp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 35phm1m2u1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 01 Jan 2021 19:13:06 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 101JB6VZ054246; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 19:11:06 GMT Original-Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by userp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 35t7ckkgkn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 01 Jan 2021 19:11:06 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0002.oracle.com (abhmp0002.oracle.com [141.146.116.8]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 101JAqBU002941; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 19:10:52 GMT In-Reply-To: <<83wnwwg8iu.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.5095.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9851 signatures=668683 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2101010121 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9851 signatures=668683 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2101010120 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=141.146.126.78; envelope-from=drew.adams@oracle.com; helo=aserp2120.oracle.com X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, GAPPY_SUBJECT=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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-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:262263 Archived-At: > > More and more (my impression), things, even major > > things, are getting changed through just bug reports. > > Dunno whether that's intentionally to avoid wider > > discussion, but it has that effect. > > > > I share that impression as well, it does seems that the modus operandi > > is to change first, discuss later. >=20 > I think this impression might be skewed. Many people feel the > opposite: that we discuss too much, and moreover, that starting a > discussion on emacs-devel almost invariably leads to stalemate that > blocks the proposed changes. Sounds to me like you're rather confirming my impression - just expressing (skewing?) it a bit differently. Someone who wants to make a change and not risk discussion that involves actually _proposing_ the change, and that might lead to the change ultimately not being agreed to, may decide to do an end-run, by "fixing" a "bug" instead. We all know here that discussion on emacs-devel does NOT "invariably" lead to stalemate that blocks changes. There can in fact be no "stalemate", because we have a decider - you. Instead of stalemate, end-runners might avoid a wider discussion that ends with your decision to "block" the change. (A decision I'm often in agreement with, FWIW.) > If someone wants to be intimately involved in the Emacs development, > he or she should subscribe to the bug list, because many issues are > discussed there (as they should be), and sometimes the conclusion is > that we should make changes. Of course. Issues. And even new feature requests. But as mentioned, lately there have been some pretty _big_ changes made that way. It's a judgment call whether something should be discussed in a bug thread or on emacs-devel. My impression (and it's only that), is that more and more some are choosing to do the former - perhaps, as you suggest, to avoid a wider or longer discussion, which might involve greater risk of counter-arguments or push-back. > It is impractical to expect that every potentially > annoying or problematic change will be detected > before it is committed, so I urge people not to > develop such unrealistic expectations. I don't think anyone has such expectations. This isn't a black-&-white thing. It doesn't help much, I think, to hypothesize expectations of "every" this or that.