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: Fri, 05 Feb 2021 13:15:40 +0200 Message-ID: <83r1lupxyb.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87zh0mmr54.fsf@gmail.com> <87y2g5smya.fsf@gmail.com> <4FF55FBF-573D-4A70-B3FC-682CA25B7ECB@gnu.org> <83lfc53whk.fsf@gnu.org> <20210203180142.seu6o3i6u7jhkyrh@Ergus> <83eehx3to5.fsf@gnu.org> <20210203221628.xgvvxjvh56gyswba@Ergus> <20210204070033.pm4ido4hq7a6twif@Ergus> <83sg6brhyg.fsf@gnu.org> <83v9b7orny.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="17973"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: thibaut.verron@gmail.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 05 12:17:33 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 1l7z7F-0004Z5-FD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 12:17:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38344 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7z7E-0002Rl-Hd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 06:17:32 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57842) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7z5W-0001Li-E3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 06:15:48 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:34580) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7z5V-00017Q-2K; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 06:15:45 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:1551 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1l7z5M-00074K-DG; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 06:15:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Thibaut Verron on Fri, 5 Feb 2021 10:11:28 +0100) 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:263970 Archived-At: > From: Thibaut Verron > Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 10:11:28 +0100 > Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Without going as far as making a formal poll, I don't think it's > unreasonable to be as careful for binding a new key as we are for > rebinding an existing key. What makes you think we aren't that careful? That the decision so far was to add that new binding doesn't mean the potential downsides weren't considered. > Besides, technical arguments were also brought forward: I have nothing against technical objections, and said or did nothing to prevent the technical discussions, including in this very thread. The post to which you responded was only about a single demand: to make a user poll each time we add a new key binding (or make a similar change). > As far as I can tell, the suggestion of a poll was only metaphorical, Then I guess I have trouble understanding written English, because to me the demand to take a poll sounded very much as an explicit and concrete one.