From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Please add S-tab to button-buffer-map Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:49:10 -0700 Message-ID: <000201c88ad4$3b3de0f0$c2b22382@us.oracle.com> References: <47E16D18.2010209@gmail.com> <47E190B2.6000006@gnu.org> <000601c88a0f$5a7ca5c0$c2b22382@us.oracle.com> <008001c88acb$024b42a0$c2b22382@us.oracle.com> <47E2D038.7070307@gnu.org> <000101c88ad1$03920bc0$c2b22382@us.oracle.com> <47E2D830.7040309@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1206049869 22622 80.91.229.12 (20 Mar 2008 21:51:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:51:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Eli Zaretskii' , lennart.borgman@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "'Jason Rumney'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 20 22:51:38 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JcSff-0006nb-Mq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:51:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JcSf5-0006Od-Gj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:50:59 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JcSeR-00067Z-0r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:50:19 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JcSeQ-00067H-CL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:50:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JcSeQ-00067B-25 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:50:18 -0400 Original-Received: from rgminet01.oracle.com ([148.87.113.118]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JcSeI-0003cf-On; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:50:11 -0400 Original-Received: from agmgw2.us.oracle.com (agmgw2.us.oracle.com [152.68.180.213]) by rgminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id m2KLo69a030609; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:50:06 -0600 Original-Received: from acsmt351.oracle.com (acsmt351.oracle.com [141.146.40.151]) by agmgw2.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.0/Switch-3.2.0) with ESMTP id m2KHrtrU009371; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:50:06 -0600 Original-Received: from inet-141-146-46-1.oracle.com by acsmt351.oracle.com with ESMTP id 3619482751206049751; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:49:11 -0700 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.178.194) by bhmail.oracle.com (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:49:10 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <47E2D830.7040309@gnu.org> Thread-Index: AciK0lJil37vX8npTyGRtnz4/qpYUgAAL0sQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:93074 Archived-At: > > What I said seemed unnatural was this: > > For something you have no concrete objection to, you are > spending a lot of effort arguing about it. You're right. I really don't have a concrete complaint against the change. But the burden for a change should be on the person proposing it - why change? > This mapping goes back 11 years to before > 20.1. The recent breakage on Windows was a bug. I didn't realize that. I thought this was a new change proposal. "Perhaps it would be better to remap..." sounded like a new change, to me. If this is only a bug (and a regression, at that, and against a long history), then why bring it up for discussion as a change? No one objects to a regression fix.