From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Can we not introduce frivolous indentation change to define-minor-mode? Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 21:05:37 +0200 Message-ID: <83vb751a7y.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83d1tg57p6.fsf@gnu.org> <87fuybqdby.fsf@gmail.com> <87lh82vq6t.fsf@gmail.com> <87d1tevmjb.fsf@gmail.com> <87io36k9be.fsf@bernoul.li> <8737uavhcu.fsf@gmail.com> <568D389D.60401@yandex.ru> <87si2au25w.fsf@gmail.com> <83bn8x2wxt.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1452193545 11388 80.91.229.3 (7 Jan 2016 19:05:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 19:05:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Leo Liu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 07 20:05:41 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aHFsO-0000c8-UT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 20:05:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60235 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHFsO-0002gA-10 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:05:36 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40263) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHFsH-0002fu-Ry for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:05:33 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHFsE-0004dK-Gd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:05:29 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:51359) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHFsE-0004dG-Dk; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:05:26 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1942 helo=HOME-C4E4A596F7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aHFsD-0006aW-Lx; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:05:26 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Leo Liu on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 02:49:34 +0800) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:197750 Archived-At: > From: Leo Liu > Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 02:49:34 +0800 > > >> I'm sorry, but the practice of unilaterally reverting commits of others > >> seems unkind to me. I think we should refrain from making changes which are > >> under dispute, where the parties have not yet reached an agreement. Doing so > >> causes aggravation and animosity we'd better without. > > > >> John, WDYT? > > > > 100% agreement. > > No disagreement here. > > I don't intend to appear unkind or anything like that. I hope my message > doesn't suggest that. > > I have weighted on the comments provided and taken the action > accordingly based on the fact that it is an incompatible change and > controversial on a few points. I'm sure you have considered the issue before reverting. However, my point is that you should have refrained from that until the discussion concluded in an agreement. If no agreement could be reached, and no acceptable compromise was in sight, the proper way, IMO, would be to ask John to suggest a compromise or make a decision. This way, all the involved parties will at least have an opportunity to present their case, and will feel that due process has been done. Thanks.