From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ingo Lohmar Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Getting rid of prog-indentation-context Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:53:12 +0100 Message-ID: <87inddm6zr.fsf@acer.localhost.com> References: <20171129233237.27462.23351@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <83d13x1j2s.fsf@gnu.org> <34abea95-c7f7-e8fa-8407-8c2fd2a4cfe1@yandex.ru> <83y3mkzw1n.fsf@gnu.org> <83mv2zzv7z.fsf@gnu.org> <83o9nexy48.fsf@gnu.org> <83d13uxug5.fsf@gnu.org> <41e3f343-816f-d2db-6575-6ef43d54957f@yandex.ru> <838tecuqjb.fsf@gnu.org> <83609guppd.fsf@gnu.org> <83po7nt6oi.fsf@gnu.org> <83vahds0ew.fsf@gnu.org> <83r2s1rvli.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1513018410 15318 195.159.176.226 (11 Dec 2017 18:53:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 18:53:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 11 19:53:27 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eOTCg-0003mN-FF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:53:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55041 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eOTCn-00012l-Ih for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:53:33 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45077) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eOTCc-0000kU-GH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:53:23 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eOTCb-0001JC-OA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:53:22 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wm0-x22f.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]:47095) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eOTCW-0001Bk-8j; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:53:16 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wm0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id r78so16452396wme.5; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 10:53:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :mime-version; bh=j+U9TWlfBVfGpHpkdfimuSeMHJ7MkVloL5hnlNvJM6U=; b=kZX1tG/Mlr7PAzWeDI5Rh4D9rDLGes6ZgKtk9Cv1jHnOhyo5vurui0SySydjndPHPz JtydMUPhI08KQ5FbFBEpoDj7Qd77p9n7A864hwDcepC5aIdYFH/TLTxAJUXea3QeFvcW mz3bpzk5yqgR8l/V8xdrovrcXcI1SRrKhCu7t8IQnviBC5JFgic44AeIkFLbCuWJjUDP p92k7GV7SfS9OJnAMw2WY7tS8yIfYANP0fpzoBnML6QOfGBAhkDjA3VBIEiJt5JsJXA1 4Y81ubHg2d5ATrG9bF8rDaoXpMOxXhlEDhD6j3pOAJNGaa4xidF5fDfzqzQHYRPl7DXx 0nvA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=j+U9TWlfBVfGpHpkdfimuSeMHJ7MkVloL5hnlNvJM6U=; b=hTr7XaR/gLzb5eybImsOPZEJCDo/YZJ7P2kNQ3D7g7clcYrReJj/rTIOtH1c5yS0md /iE7I2XcqaEldApGMZRKlgCJdPEBNHJWZ7etx8wwYT4hixQWf0fO7QD10Yn87To3Wpf4 buGqqwL+vj/9RDVXJBcs7QDQJTZJLchQWJ16lkwL72nPfkrfbtqLG76hfCg+2+UNrj8v Zxl82tqysCo1Xyi6W4u1rqSSGIBr1owGUf9gxI0EJXFoRYl5HUwZR0FbIr8PwoqFn5yp bWOgZmRMF236P+1rRRU3M9N9aFJMv407vqA3PD8HAXofzCS4qFp4i2PCYMnkqThRBfIw wx7w== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIMf3vs/DWElJwEEezi2HjX3MM+9JtN0TBcxmQROZw8aHjBOmPI nZVANK4rvawYhAO1c4npLf4RHg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBou8isegHp3Tzidy+qmsP6WwI0+37pX0L39F/U/tJGVYuutquRoVknrYxYkX1FQs3SOZTwAqqg== X-Received: by 10.80.170.87 with SMTP id p23mr2353872edc.289.1513018394307; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 10:53:14 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost (xdsl-78-34-202-248.netcologne.de. [78.34.202.248]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g3sm6392397edi.11.2017.12.11.10.53.12 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 11 Dec 2017 10:53:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83r2s1rvli.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:220901 Archived-At: On Mon, Dec 11 2017 20:02 (+0200), Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Actually, I rather think it's important that we stick to our own > decisions, especially ones made not so long ago. > > This particular decision wasn't made out of ignorance, or slipped > through the cracks. It was discussed at length, reviewed, and updated > according to discussions. It in effect set a standard for doing this > stuff, so we should expect others to follow the standard. We could > also extend and improve the standard, as we gain experience. But we > shouldn't throw it away, just because it is marginally more complex in > some cases than some simplistic alternative. Throwing it away without > a very good reason sends a message to the community that we don't > uphold our own development decisions, and are quite ready and capable > of overturning them at will soon after they were made in good faith. > That's a bad message for a veteran project with a vibrant, > decentralized community. Without getting into the technical stuff: I have made (albeit small) contributions to several Emacs- and non-Emacs-related free software projects, and I strongly disagree with your description of what kind of message would be sent. [Note: I am honestly convinced that everybody participating in the discussion has Emacs' best interests close to his/her heart.] 1) If the discussed, agreed-upon, reviewed and committed changes would already have been released, and now reverted, that would send a very bad message, namely pretty much what you describe above. But these are *unreleased* changes, ie, we're still in the same development cycle. 2) If the [...] changes from earlier in the cycle would be reverted w/o wide consensus (on the *technical* desirability to revert them) of those who actually discussed, coded, reviewed and committed them, that would /also/ send a very bad message to contributors, namely that their hard work might easily be discarded later, on a whim. But (AFAIU) those who actually worked on that stuff have changed their mind (again, for technical reasons) and now *want* to revert the changes. 3) In such a situation, reverting the changes sends a *positive* message to me: That people working on Emacs are capable and willing to re-evaluate situations, to change their opinions, to learn and to find better solutions. OTOH, keeping the changes under the above circumstances, for formal reasons, would suggest to me that Emacs development is like some big blob that keeps moving mostly because of its huge inertial mass. To my mind, that's the opposite of the message that the Emacs community wants to send out. Not even $0.02...