From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Leo Liu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] RFC: eldoc-documentation-functions hook Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 12:12:28 +0800 Message-ID: References: <20160612061229.GA6463@holos.localdomain> <838tyahoim.fsf@gnu.org> <20160612182453.GA12034@holos.localdomain> <20160613211735.GA5969@holos.localdomain> <20160617210849.GA3775@holos.localdomain> <20160707033019.GA22360@holos.localdomain> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467864777 5085 80.91.229.3 (7 Jul 2016 04:12:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 04:12:57 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 07 06:12:49 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bL0gC-0006Pe-U3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 06:12:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37368 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bL0gB-0001yw-Sg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 00:12:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35885) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bL0g6-0001yq-Ri for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 00:12:43 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bL0g2-0001dH-O6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 00:12:41 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:54804) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bL0g2-0001dC-HG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 00:12:38 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bL0g0-0006I7-Qk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 06:12:37 +0200 Original-Received: from 116.213.171.155 ([116.213.171.155]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 06:12:36 +0200 Original-Received: from sdl.web by 116.213.171.155 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 06:12:36 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 9 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 116.213.171.155 Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAACgAAAAoBAMAAAB+0KVeAAAAGFBMVEUKDAg1NjRWV1V9fnyg op/DxcLk5uP8/voi63ReAAAACXBIWXMAAAWJAAAFiQFtaJ36AAAAB3RJTUUH1goZAgAz00bgXgAA AeVJREFUKM9lk0Fz2jAQhQXJD3CCO70CmcC1YMtcWyTZ14Bl69xats4N9r6/3zWQBlodNKNPu/s0 b1cCQFuZGpfVVh3vAvBJolIXRkapSuoRUtIdFyo1Y5xSdlAj7OtvD1XnXxmWRi+eWgcxyCed1lVV B1CrKyujMoi+eLA5kU1SsjoHlW+nQjTtFxk4MXgrOxvIqzoTZR8XgPaLl419zgsMaSGFPiUOZCIh thsx5Xy9NsK8Kwf/JoQgMxcVJ301HKkcSWaT0O7FY056J4U9xcYfnmVXG4801lW6lqwu2nKFZoHC HuzvaTVndZ+LaRQgZdthXw1cpynEkLEwyFHXk/aIxNQ6QeooJuzPMB+wn+D7JJNsiCcVA13/A3h/ xE9J+WidpAwoYNmRFwyvSRhNVtsdaAewzZZP5uw82QL9+tyNfocyP0McAzICUr5Mk9RdIjWasUNx aIIt6NK4ZtXIMdfMQt3nuMAyWbLI4DqZ4xPq/ag8jPond4XU/cLuOgw6XCFX/YCUfcDAMMH58fD4 G9kDchwfqVefkBwup2uZM+Q4WhJt5jN3AxXCsaS2yXEDuWgS8VOzW0gFjhEPmLyFMKBFaLb1HRwc DiaKwx0EeTMRYnYPQRW3PP4HApvlMv0PttX5v/D6Aws3IOSEwzmLAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.95 (OS X 10.11.5) Cancel-Lock: sha1:SnpZvf+2lzxfgPnB8mPKwMTDGbk= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:205298 Archived-At: On 2016-07-06 23:30 -0400, Mark Oteiza wrote: > Applied with some wording changes as 5811404 I don't think we have reached any consensus. There are legitimate concerns that this introduces incompatibility. Please give better explanation why reverting a decision made by ex-maintainer. Cheers, Leo