Re: emacs-29 b8d2ec920f: Revert "Improve last change to xfaces.c" (05ece1eb8b)

[Gregory Heytings <gregory@heytings.org>]

>> Don't do that!  You did not answer ANY part of what I said.

Of course I did.  That you did not read it is another thing.

>
> Btw, for posterity's sake, I undid this revert for two reasons:
>

What kind of development practice is this?  You "improve" code in a 
complex area of the Emacs code base that was agreed upon after a long 
discussion only a couple of hours after it was pushed, without asking 
anyone whether what you want to do is okay?  And you revert without even 
reading or replying to the detailed explanation why that "improvement" was 
wrong.

>
> - unsetting the "extra" attribute is not safe on the Haiku port.
>

That's wrong.  And you would have understood this if you had read the 
detailed explanation why your "improvement" is wrong.

>
> - the bitmask variable is a real nusiance for anyone trying to debug 
> Emacs or change the layout of the font attribute index enumerator.
>

It isn't, and it is not supposed to be modified on a daily basis.

>
> Just because a bug has been closed does NOT mean the change in it is no 
> longer subject to scrutiny. I don't follow bug reports that aren't 
> related to X, which means I (and possibly many others) only see changes 
> as they arrive on emacs-diffs.  Which means that by the time the bug is 
> closed, no, the discussion is not ``over'', and other people still have 
> a chance to make changes to problems they see as they see them (a 
> bitmask depending on the internal layout of an enum exposed to Lisp is 
> definitely one such problem, so is unsetting `:extra'.)
>

Nobody said the discussion was over (although I was hoping it was).

But what you did is not a "discussion", it is the exact opposite of a 
"discussion": these are misguided changes introduced in the release branch 
_without any discussion_.