From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Vasilij Schneidermann Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: How are the defaults chosen? Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 10:16:33 +0200 Message-ID: <20200909081633.GB1346@odonien.localdomain> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gr/z0/N6AeWAPJVB" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="23689"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel To: Thibaut Verron Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 09 10:17:49 2020 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 1kFvIa-00063J-Fe for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2020 10:17:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38508 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kFvIZ-0001fR-Hl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2020 04:17:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:32924) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kFvHY-0000ab-Vm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2020 04:16:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mout-p-201.mailbox.org ([80.241.56.171]:47938) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_CHACHA20_POLY1305:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kFvHW-0003gH-7Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2020 04:16:44 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org (smtp1.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:105:465:1:1:0]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-384) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-201.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BmZc75mlHzQlWV; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 10:16:39 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at heinlein-support.de Original-Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org ([80.241.60.240]) by gerste.heinlein-support.de (gerste.heinlein-support.de [91.198.250.173]) (amavisd-new, port 10030) with ESMTP id xnBLP8O8fFfy; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 10:16:36 +0200 (CEST) Mail-Followup-To: Thibaut Verron , emacs-devel Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Score: -2.73 / 15.00 / 15.00 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: C07B217DD X-Rspamd-UID: 5444ad Received-SPF: pass client-ip=80.241.56.171; envelope-from=mail@vasilij.de; helo=mout-p-201.mailbox.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/09/09 04:16:40 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -25 X-Spam_score: -2.6 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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:254853 Archived-At: --gr/z0/N6AeWAPJVB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline > I'm not trying to start a new discussion on each one of those defaults, > but are there clear guidelines on what makes a default value better > than another? I'm afraid that's just wishful thinking. Personally, I try thinking hard about a reasonable default and avoid changing anything after that so that no user has to worry about unreasonable breakage after updating. > Or is it just a dozen individual discussions, sometimes resulting in > a new default, and in all other cases the default is whichever option > appeared first? This sounds more like it. Given that backwards-compatibility is such a big deal, whatever setting appeared first is bound to set a precedent. It requires big activation energy to actively change that default. Bonus: There is bound to be less users using a non-default setting compared to those using the default one, so even comparing user experience reports to judge the benefits of changing the default is going to be challenging (not even accounting for phenomena such as the silent majority of happy users or vocal minorities). --gr/z0/N6AeWAPJVB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCAAdFiEE0dAcySl3bqM8O17WFmfJg6zCifoFAl9Yj1kACgkQFmfJg6zC ifrklgf/e+Lz5S9Yd5Tx6tvw2WasK378/U2LYDOQpfMKGd+i4aB6zoD0i9jtUxXS jaOW3G/MDf6UGIM1+siy/6oDp8Tg4QzOm093LfvFJtlaaUCNb/GBdkpqo9RVhVi2 QOgzGS5YfGcWsGusZC34qcgc3lk7b7CTnnc3UL6PBLFzzrAKA6HYdJE+pD+gVGLW f9Ao236SQ7+z43AqtZ9DJndJRu9nufXfPLNGXsstHzVLVancePJA/KCwhd6p5FJh aA+tD1bFEVjmstSXJ7k0hBhJu1C55uKM03FXERpEHRb9aEA3y3zQKxOYRKokhkG9 uZoinYE6phJPwm8xhZxtm2Mm6SpWew== =tkU+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gr/z0/N6AeWAPJVB--