From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Luc Teirlinck Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Idea for determining what users use Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 20:24:15 -0500 (CDT) Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <200306010124.h511OFZ22272@eel.dms.auburn.edu> References: <59EC6788-92AE-11D7-8588-00039363E640@swipnet.se> <87znl41jli.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1054430783 11735 80.91.224.249 (1 Jun 2003 01:26:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 01:26:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 01 03:26:18 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19MHc2-00032n-00 for ; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 03:26:18 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19MHrv-0001nU-00 for ; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 03:42:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19MHcs-0005Mv-4k for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Sat, 31 May 2003 21:27:10 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19MHcg-0005KL-H8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 May 2003 21:26:58 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19MHcf-0005KA-6r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 May 2003 21:26:57 -0400 Original-Received: from manatee.dms.auburn.edu ([131.204.53.104]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19MHa8-0002sB-Fo; Sat, 31 May 2003 21:24:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eel.dms.auburn.edu (eel.dms.auburn.edu [131.204.53.108]) h511O8oc003213; Sat, 31 May 2003 20:24:13 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (from teirllm@localhost) by eel.dms.auburn.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id h511OFZ22272; Sat, 31 May 2003 20:24:15 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: eel.dms.auburn.edu: teirllm set sender to teirllm@dms.auburn.edu using -f Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-reply-to: (message from Richard Stallman on Sat, 31 May 2003 15:51:57 -0400) Original-cc: monnier+misc/ads@rum.cs.yale.edu Original-cc: jan.h.d@swipnet.se Original-cc: monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu Original-cc: alex@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:14541 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:14541 Richard Stallman wrote: Anyway, if you normally send mail thru Emacs, there won't be a problem. This feature would use compose-mail, like everything else in Emacs that sends mail, so these messages would go through your setup and would work. Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote: it sounds like the requirements for us are that we get extremely compacted information (1-bit per feature) associated w/ a particular release. and: in our case, for any feature, it is desirable to get only one bit of info (that it is, whether the feature is indeed being used). If somebody files a "bug report" after proper thought, we get to see why he needs the feature, or believes he does. With the proposed system, if somebody sends a reply ranting and raving about how much he resents the "intrusion on his privacy" we will just conclude that he uses the feature. Popping up a mail buffer makes it super-easy to complain for people with permanent internet access and inconveniences other people. If we just pop up information and an email address (bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org maybe), then only people who really care about the feature will complain (and if people do not really care, then what is the problem?) and we will see why they still need the feature. Maybe we can still get rid of the feature, but add the needed functionality to the feature that replaced it. What is the need for the extremely compacted information Thien-Thi is referring to? If we really need extremely compacted information then there is no problem: the feature is incredibly useful and should not be obsoleted. If we care enough about this to inconvenience (and potentially antagonize) users, we should also care enough to read what they have to say. Sincerely, Luc.