From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Confused by y-or-n-p Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 01:10:13 -0500 Message-ID: References: <834kkcr1eo.fsf@gnu.org> <83im8qnyca.fsf@gnu.org> <83bleinmse.fsf@gnu.org> <56435592-d2d0-5fb6-977f-01e1931da835@gmx.at> <87k0t38g1z.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83czyvkts6.fsf@gnu.org> <87bleetirr.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87y2hhri3n.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83pn2tkfg8.fsf@gnu.org> <871rf7ippu.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83a6trg6mc.fsf@gnu.org> <87im8f951f.fsf@gnus.org> <83lfdacapo.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="19166"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: juri@linkov.net, rudalics@gmx.at, Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, drew.adams@oracle.com To: Richard Stallman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 04 07:11:16 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 1kwJ5I-0004gm-DS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 07:11:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38608 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kwJ5H-0008Mf-AW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 01:11:15 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54584) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kwJ4N-0007pt-Fv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 01:10:19 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:49230) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kwJ4L-0006Bb-87; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 01:10:18 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 35BBF440654; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 01:10:15 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 08C10440489; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 01:10:14 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1609740614; bh=TOoCNO4KDiTuwObIien81zJ+HRKOfssiB8b2I2jB188=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=jOwtV2hD+6iR5kfSTqq9nXQnlxG5VJOu+HPqb5KfrWs0G3uPF546pNeIoEoRjOyRm PCfzAh7xe9OdNZvKbcd06XtRzXnIsK2nkGu7D5ZTGButNyURyZFi2aWcnnKOdcYx8i 5vno4VTyz1JpBWAjIa+KXRPHlCfgpb02XpYeHlQBdhpNzOh9LEHirQyGHdYRy5UrtW vyu4vRkfO53Jl83MJq08SmD+FW0Wfn91TSlg7FmsIMcj+nvxQwrZtiY8+Cw2jiGwAZ eVQ8PhZvt4xfkGQLucrYtu9kP988/PfDkKe796utu0UA1n8NiDOfDcUffrTjVW4MK9 f+XGhdiriNHUg== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [104.247.243.191]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A1492120370; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 01:10:13 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Mon, 04 Jan 2021 00:16:55 -0500") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca 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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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:262396 Archived-At: > I am proposing a systematic way to make them less likely, by helping > people take notice that a UI change is being proposed, so they can > object quickly. In most cases, the reaction to UI changes is to complain about the change because it's ... different. That makes for very poor arguments, *especially* when the change is discussed without people having actually tried it out for a while to see how it plays out in practice after the initial "bump". So, IMO always discussing such changes before implementing the change may be systematic but it is definitely not the best solution. Stefan