bug#51883: 29.0.50; Command to get accidentally deleted frames back

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net>
> Cc: michael_heerdegen@web.de,  gregory@heytings.org,  51883@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 20:41:26 +0200
> 
> >> > I tried to use this, but undelete-frame-mode in the File menu
> >> > makes no sense: when you mistakenly deleted a frame, you want
> >> > to undelete it immediately, so you open the File menu, and
> >> > see the message "No way, you can't undelete the deleted frame,
> >> > because you were careless and not enabled a special mode".
> >> >
> >> > So the most useful case for this feature is to get the
> >> > accidentally deleted frame back, and it fails to do this.
> >> >
> >> > Instead, it allows undeleting 16 frames in a special mode.
> >> > Is there really a human that can delete 16 frames, and then
> >> > remember what was on the 16th frame back?
> >> >
> >> > Rereading this thread indicates that the only concern about
> >> > enabling this by default was the memory footprint for remembering
> >> > 16 frames.  OTOH, this feature is really useful for remembering
> >> > 1 frame.  So this is what should be enabled by default:
> >>
> >> It seems this is the right thing to do, so now pushed to master.
> >
> > I'm sorry, you cannot do that.  We discussed this at some length and
> > reached certain conclusions.  Then you come and in effect say those
> > considerations and discussions make no sense, and you know better?
> > Let's please respect our discussions and decisions more than that.
> > And if you want others to respect your opinions, please respect
> > theirs, even if you disagree.  The feature as installed allows you to
> > customize it to have that mode turned on by default, so you could
> > easily fix your problem by doing that.
> >
> > Specifically to your main argument: it is no different from deleting a
> > file: unless the user took steps to configure the system to allow
> > undeleting deleted files, deleted files are lost forever.  Moreover,
> > in the case of an Emacs frame, nothing of terrible importance is
> > actually lost: the buffers displayed in that frame are still there,
> > and restoring the deleted frame by hand shouldn't take more than a few
> > moments.
> >
> > So I reverted this changeset.  Please in the future don't make such
> > changes unilaterally.
> 
> This is not true.  This is not a unilateral change.  I posted a patch,
> then waited for comments 3 days, and when no one commented this means
> that everyone agreed that it's a more reasonable change, then pushed to
> master.

I guess 3 days is not enough, especially in this time of year.  My
rule of thumb is to wait at least a week, possibly two.

But in any case, the amount of time you waited is not the main issue
here.  The main issue is that we decided to implement this the way we
did, and you were even part of that discussion.  It makes no sense to
undo all that because you suddenly don't like the results.