From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: A new user perspective about "Changes for emacs 28" Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 17:20:48 +0300 Message-ID: <83k0x4mjsv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1ca462fa-0f9e-3c18-6386-f43f49388b2f@gmail.com> <20200907180812.5tfylspp7i6vl4o3@Ergus> <94fda087-a61b-356d-4bb4-791907593246@yandex.ru> <24302cf8-5ac8-4abd-83ce-3e33c51a8beb@default> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="13461"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: nicola.manca85@gmail.com, spacibba@aol.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com, dgutov@yandex.ru To: ams@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 08 16:21:40 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 1kFeVA-0003P8-4c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2020 16:21:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35682 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kFeV9-0005kp-6R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2020 10:21:39 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35502) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kFeUM-0004eh-Ed for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2020 10:20:50 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:40448) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kFeUL-0005ub-QM; Tue, 08 Sep 2020 10:20:49 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4337 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kFeUK-0001No-B7; Tue, 08 Sep 2020 10:20:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: (ams@gnu.org) 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:254734 Archived-At: > From: ams@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) > Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 02:18:24 -0400 > Cc: nicola.manca85@gmail.com, spacibba@aol.com, drew.adams@oracle.com, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > Why on earth would we do that? Emacs undo > > is superior. > > undo-tree is superior. > > That would make Emacs unusable for the majority of Emacs users. I believe this is an exaggeration. Exaggerations aren't useful in discussion such as this one. IME, both the Emacs undo and undo-tree are similarly seamless for simple use cases, which cover 80% of their use. Once more complex situation arise, my opinion is that undo-tree is more complex and harder to grasp than the Emacs undo, so I don't think undo-tree is better suited to newbies than the default undo.