From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Differences between ibuffer and dired Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 22:31:02 -0700 Message-ID: <69E59DE2835E43CAB86ECA7160F7BB9F@us.oracle.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1278048738 17971 80.91.229.12 (2 Jul 2010 05:32:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 05:32:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Emacs-Devel devel' , 'Lennart Borgman' , 'Deniz Dogan' To: Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 02 07:32:15 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OUYrF-0001GF-Vs for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 07:32:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40216 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OUYrE-0007Jw-QC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 01:32:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46281 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OUYr5-0007Gk-8x for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 01:32:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OUYr4-0007xN-4V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 01:32:03 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:55535) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OUYr3-0007xE-SY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 01:32:02 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet13.oracle.com (rcsinet13.oracle.com [148.87.113.125]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o625VwGD021280 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 2 Jul 2010 05:31:59 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by rcsinet13.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o6249A7B028204; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 05:31:57 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt004.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 390423561278048662; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 22:31:02 -0700 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/141.144.168.139) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 22:31:02 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcsZovEQU++Fm5AnSDuR5JqBPibFzAAAfzUg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Source-IP: acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090202.4C2D79CE.009F:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:126677 Archived-At: > > If you really must do this kind of thing, please keep it to > > a minimum. And please propose and discuss each key change > > on its own merits. > > Thats why I suggested a separate branch. All the changes > could then be tried in the branch withouth inconveniencing users. "That's why"? Telling people to simply try a new sack of changes is not the same as "proposing and discussing each key change". > I also dont like the argument that a specific keymap should be kept > because its been like that forever. I've been using Emacs > since 1988 and I would still much prefer good consistent keymaps to > inconsistent ones. Read what I said about consistency. There are degrees and kinds of consistency, and no degree or kind is the be-all and end-all. The devil is in the details. The argument about the age of Dired is not simply an argument that what is old is good and should never be changed. Read what I wrote, including the part about consistency wrt what users are used to and wrt other, non-core, code. Read the part about "other things being equal". No one said that any keymap "should be kept because it's been like that forever". You are either not reading well or being dishonest in representing what you've read. _Reasons_ for each binding change, please. Just why is this or that a good change to make? Pick a key that you think should be changed, and support it with an _argument_. You seem to be only reacting, in knee-jerk fashion. Did you actually read what I wrote? > > In sum: > > > > * Treat proposed changes on a case-by-case basis, discussing them. > > * Respect Dired. Respect time. Respect user numbers. > > * Consider consistency wrt its scope. And remember that it > > is not the only important quality.