From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: text-quoting-style Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:17:53 -0700 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <55E71321.8090001@cs.ucla.edu> References: <83r3mn50rz.fsf@gnu.org> <20150828172501.GB4882@acm.fritz.box> <20150829155959.GA20484@acm.fritz.box> <20150830131613.GA2724@acm.fritz.box> <20150831200149.GA2280@acm.fritz.box> <20150901130303.GC2362@acm.fritz.box> <87r3mhyiru.fsf@gnu.org> <55E638FE.70800@cs.ucla.edu> <87mvx5xq9q.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1441207111 5695 80.91.229.3 (2 Sep 2015 15:18:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:18:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Bastien Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 02 17:18:21 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1ZX9nn-0007dR-19 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 17:18:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38623 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZX9nn-0007pL-38 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 11:18:19 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59569) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZX9nX-0007ow-Dx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 11:18:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZX9nW-0006oK-IW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 11:18:03 -0400 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:55904) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZX9nQ-0006kq-BB; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 11:17:56 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B28A160FD6; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:17:55 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id SKjHQJFdJ9LY; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A68160FD5; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:17:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ogvRi0sTSW7a; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.9] (pool-100-32-155-148.lsanca.fios.verizon.net [100.32.155.148]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 63526160F75; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:17:54 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 In-Reply-To: <87mvx5xq9q.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 131.179.128.68 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:189463 Archived-At: Bastien wrote: > If all current changes are set in stone, that's easier, and having a > list of those changes will help. Or is it all documented in etc/NEWS? It is all documented in etc/NEWS, yes. It's also documented in the manual and in doc strings. I'm not a fan of installing undocumented code. As for "set in stone", well, nothing in Emacs is set in stone. :-) > If not all changes are set in stone, then I'm wondering why they do > not happen on a dedicated branch. Making controversial changes on the > master branch feels pushy to me. The changes did not become controversial until after they were installed in master. They weren't installed in master until after being proposed and discussed. Sometimes that happens.