RE: Reverting but keeping undo

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> >> I think it's a great change.
> >>
> > Yes, why?  Any good reason?

You misquoted.  My "why" there was about the lack of discussion prior to this change - why no discussion?  You make it sound like I asked why you thought this was a great change.  Dishonest or an innocent mistake?  This is what you should have quoted:

DG> > I think it's a great change.
da> > > And why no discussion beforehand?
da> Yes, why?  Any good reason?

> > There might well be someone out there who, "personally" or not (?), has
> > (another) good argument for keeping things the way they were - at least as
> > an option.  Who knows?  As Richard often says (especially for changes to
> > basic, longstanding behavior), why not poll the users?
> 
> They should be able to speak up now, or during the pretest. Nothing is
> really set in stone, when it comes to code.

That is not a poll of users.  And it is not a discusson on emacs-devel by Emacs developers.

Instead of willy nilly changing the basic function `revert-buffer', this feature of extra protection against user mistakes (including mistakenly confirming reversion!) should be implemented by creating a separate command or user variable (perhaps option) - giving users the choice to use it or not.  If `auto-revert-mode' is also implicated then it can be made sensitive to the same (or an additional) user choice.

> > Don't you wonder that this came up now seemingly for the first time?  Do
> > you think that no one has thought before about whether the undo list should
> > be kept or dropped when reverting?  A bit presumptuous, no?
> 
> Obviously not. The opened bug is a couple of years old now.

There are thousands of bugs that have been open for a couple of years or more.  That means nothing.

> > Think about it a bit more.  Open it for discussion on emacs-devel.  Why
> > act so precipitously?  Is that "personally" necessary?
> 
> We're having this discussion now, and instead of giving actual reasons
> you're speaking of hypothetical users.

I gave reasons.  1. This is what reverting means, what reverting does (should do, always has done).  2. `revert-buffer' is not used only interactively; it is a basic function used in lots of code.  3. Users should have a choice (individually).

This is like the trash/recycle bin that was added not too long ago.  We didn't just redefine `delete-file' so that it always moves files to the bin, did we?  Why not?

> Talking about personal needs and requirements is good, because every
> person is usually competent about those.
> 
> But the way you often assume the you know the userbase better than
> everyone else is tiresome, to be honest.

I'm not the one assuming anything about the user base.  I'm not the one claiming competence deciding what is good for everyone.   I'm not imposing any change on the existing behavior.  My only assumption about the user base is that users deserve control, choice.