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: Recentish C-s M-y change Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2021 17:09:37 +0200 Message-ID: <83o8i6cb0u.fsf@gnu.org> References: <<87r1na4tyu.fsf@gnus.org>> <<87tus6tj7s.fsf@mail.linkov.net>> <<87a6txigm1.fsf@gnus.org>> <<874kk5lzew.fsf@mail.linkov.net>> <> <<87eej8ifll.fsf@mail.linkov.net>> <> <<87h7o3k5b5.fsf@mail.linkov.net>> <> <> <83wnwwg8iu.fsf@gnu.org> <837dovg687.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="6318"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: ams@gnu.org, juri@linkov.net, larsi@gnus.org, drew.adams@oracle.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 03 16:10:41 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 1kw51l-0001ZI-Nt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2021 16:10:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55094 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kw51k-0003ys-Qi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2021 10:10:40 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53448) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kw512-0003Ue-Vm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2021 10:09:56 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:43482) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kw512-0001pm-Mf; Sun, 03 Jan 2021 10:09:56 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:2086 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kw50u-0002VW-Q5; Sun, 03 Jan 2021 10:09:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Richard Stallman on Sun, 03 Jan 2021 01:01:55 -0500) 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:262360 Archived-At: > From: Richard Stallman > Cc: ams@gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, > drew.adams@oracle.com, juri@linkov.net > Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2021 01:01:55 -0500 > > > > I probably won't read a thread that discusses how to fix a bug. > > > I would not expect a decision about a change in features to be > > > made in such a thread. > > > That expectation is incorrect, both factually and in principle. > > I think we are failing to communicate. I described an expectation > that I use to reduce the amount of work I have to do. Whether it > is ever mistaken is simply not the point. Each one of us can and does choose the criteria by which he or she reads the mailing lists. But if those criteria don't fit the reality of how and where changes of interest are being discussed, then some of the messages one would like to read will be necessarily missed. A criterion that discussions about fixing a bug couldn't possibly end up discussing behavior changes or even new features is IMO and IME mistaken, because such shifts in the discussion's focus happen quite frequently, and are natural. So I'm saying that by applying such a criterion you will miss messages that are of interest to you. > I expect that many other people on this list skip threads when > the thread topic does not seem interesting. They too need > to find ways to reduce how much they have to read. People who skip threads based on some simplistic criteria, like their Subject or the fact that they discuss a bug fix, risk missing messages they might be interested in. I don't know how to fix that on the sending end, as we are an informal community of people with very different interests and different levels of writing capabilities. I don't think we have any practical way of enforcing some discipline that would make such simplistic criteria of selecting threads work reliably. This can only be handled by sophisticated enough measures on the receiving end: some sort of smart classification of messages, keyword searches, etc. (I don't use any of that because I simply read everything on both lists.)