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: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding. Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 19:13:43 +0200 Message-ID: <83lfc53whk.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20210202134950.vybbpf3iewbymfjo.ref@Ergus> <20210202134950.vybbpf3iewbymfjo@Ergus> <87zh0mmr54.fsf@gmail.com> <87y2g5smya.fsf@gmail.com> <4FF55FBF-573D-4A70-B3FC-682CA25B7ECB@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="22827"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: spacibba@aol.com, kevin.legouguec@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 03 18:21:53 2021 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 1l7Lqj-0005oG-Cl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 18:21:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38370 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7Lqi-0005h8-EI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 12:21:52 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36580) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7Lj6-0005M1-In for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 12:14:00 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:47394) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7Lj5-0002cw-7K; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 12:13:59 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:1522 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1l7Liq-0006f0-7Q; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 12:13:47 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Drew Adams on Wed, 3 Feb 2021 16:12:01 +0000) 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:263815 Archived-At: > From: Drew Adams > CC: "spacibba@aol.com" > Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 16:12:01 +0000 > > > FTR, that bug report was a feature request (and for a new key binding > > at that), so the fact it ended up introducing a new key binding > > shouldn't surprise anyone. > > It was about a particular mode, not about a > global key for reverting buffers in general. The original suggestion was about a minor mode, but while discussing the solution, several people agreed that a more general solution would make sense. There's nothing wrong here. It's entirely within a legitimate process of discussing a proposal for an improvement, and it's entirely adequate for the maintainers to decide they prefer a more general solution to what originally was a more narrow one. > That's the problem: the discussion of a narrow > feature request and possible solutions turned > into a wider discussion. _And_ someone there > decided to change Emacs to add a global key > for reverting buffers. There's no problem here, none. This is how Emacs development worked for decades, and this is how it works now. Please stop misrepresenting a completely legitimate process of deciding on a solution as if it were some kind of coup d'état. It isn't. Nothing untowardly happened during the discussions of that issue, and the decision was entirely adequate. > That a bug/enhancement discussion can range > wider is not unusual or bad. But when it > comes to making wide-ranging changes to Emacs > it's maybe time to move that wider discussion > to emacs-devel. That's the point (IMO). The "maybe" part assumes some space for a judgment call, so it's unclear to me why you claim that the decision not to start such a discussion ahead of the commit must necessarily be wrong. > > It is of course OK to start here a discussion about any change that > > could have unintended or adverse consequences, as Ergus did in this > > case. I see nothing wrong with having such discussions after the > > change is installed. > > 100% agreement. It's not too late to discuss > this, and to remove that new key binding. Then what is the problem, exactly? what are you arguing about, when the discussion _was_ started, and _is_ happening? > IMO, the binding should be removed until/unless > the discussion here leads to a decision to add > it back again. Please wait till the discussion comes to its conclusion.