From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Reverting but keeping undo Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 16:26:32 +0400 Message-ID: <51A5F3F8.3070300@yandex.ru> References: <87mwrwede7.fsf@wanadoo.es> <8738t6tqie.fsf@yandex.ru> <92f42e8d-b6a8-4f2e-bd1d-c717f1ea9dd0@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1369830421 17007 80.91.229.3 (29 May 2013 12:27:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 12:27:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 29 14:27:00 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@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 1UhfSz-0003Ek-Sc for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 14:26:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35006 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhfSz-0005Xl-Dd for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 08:26:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:39749) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhfSi-0005WZ-4Y for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 08:26:47 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhfSd-0002b7-Hv for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 08:26:40 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-la0-x232.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::232]:43518) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhfSd-0002ar-7o for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 08:26:35 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-la0-f50.google.com with SMTP id ed20so8440497lab.23 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 05:26:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-antivirus:x-antivirus-status; bh=MpfzRRNJ78qQTM3wTAJG1TTaOKdGW43GpsaZZZX05nE=; b=zUjGyuGm/zhi5eny1VAnaK/w//IGNpl5vwAlcBs3UgMnnBqBGkkhI+KbxiJAvG/lpH WPoHCd1pPTczFR8u4OYCYXsYUtVCytZSZvgZuU8wFEEeBeBbcJnKvAVSTp/X5j5wdEBE RamKtQVFhKud12Gz8/bVwMnm5DrK1/q8CupDAzOoSCvuQvHRrL5TusaMnl9/XhB/rczG x9nu7g7MGWW5kQiVOGbx7QzSReyz5JCgJ2rqtwDklzyGJOJhVgRS1lShrjBhe51jiGMS fKzlZ7u4jVOo0uBbRpZH64/l8aht2w9YMOOMeWhdNGJgIklYt0//rqKDoitzwSG4jPBG XjNA== X-Received: by 10.112.164.105 with SMTP id yp9mr1443290lbb.103.1369830394250; Wed, 29 May 2013 05:26:34 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([178.252.98.87]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id rr7sm10191676lbb.0.2013.05.29.05.26.32 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 29 May 2013 05:26:33 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 In-Reply-To: <92f42e8d-b6a8-4f2e-bd1d-c717f1ea9dd0@default> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130528-1, 29.05.2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4010:c03::232 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:91128 Archived-At: On 29.05.2013 9:13, Drew Adams wrote: >> I think it's a great change. >> > Yes, why? Any good reason? The obvious one: prevention of data loss. With `auto-revert-mode', for example. > (Sure, users can add back code themselves to empty the undo list and get back the former behavior...) Indeed, they can. The reverse has been impossible, until now. > 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. > 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. > 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. 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.