From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Idea for determining what users use Date: 06 Jun 2003 02:21:58 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <5x4r346ont.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> References: <59EC6788-92AE-11D7-8588-00039363E640@swipnet.se> <200306010124.h511OFZ22272@eel.dms.auburn.edu> <200306010159.h511xiE22326@eel.dms.auburn.edu> <5xof1ebwjr.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1054852332 3967 80.91.224.249 (5 Jun 2003 22:32:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:32:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 06 00:32:05 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 19O3HB-00011D-00 for ; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 00:32:05 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19O3ZR-0006Gd-00 for ; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 00:50:57 +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 19O3Ex-0004Fl-1e for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:29:47 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19O39a-0002ib-LL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:24:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19O39P-0002cL-3S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:24:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.filanet.dk ([195.215.206.179]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19O399-0002RK-3d; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:23:47 -0400 Original-Received: from kfs2.cua.dk.cua.dk (unknown [10.1.82.3]) by mail.filanet.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 661487C012; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 00:23:45 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 34 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 Original-cc: jan.h.d@swipnet.se Original-cc: monnier+misc/ads@rum.cs.yale.edu Original-cc: monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu Original-cc: teirllm@dms.auburn.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:14794 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:14794 Richard Stallman writes: > 1) What additional benefits do we get from "annoying" users with the > proposed "usage polls", compared to the simple scheme above? > > There are cases where we have simply removed a feature rather than > just putting a file into the `obsolete' subdirectory. I am not > thinking of using this for just moving something into the `obsolete' > subdirectory. Ok, but considering the frequency by which we make new major releases of emacs, it may take us 2-3 years to determine whether a given feature can be "safely" removed: In emacs 21.1, we had a feature X, that we want to remove. So in emacs 21.5, we mark feature X so that usage is reported back to the emacs team. In the 2-3 years before we release emacs 22.1, we have gathered enough "no responses" to decide feature X may be removed in 22.1. IMO, it would be much simpler just to move the feature to obsolete in 21.5, and if we don't get any feedback on the feature, we may decide to remove it in 22.1 -- or just leave it in. There's just so little useful information to gain from the proposed "usage-polls" that I still think it's not worth spending our precious resources on. -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk