From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: RE: Reverting but keeping undo Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 06:55:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <93506dfd-1e77-4dec-acad-82872f9bc428@default> References: <87mwrwede7.fsf@wanadoo.es> <8738t6tqie.fsf@yandex.ru> <92f42e8d-b6a8-4f2e-bd1d-c717f1ea9dd0@default> <51A5F3F8.3070300@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1369835745 15548 80.91.229.3 (29 May 2013 13:55:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 13:55:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 29 15:55:44 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@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 1Uhgqs-0002T5-Sw for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 15:55:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50729 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uhgqs-0003IS-5h for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 09:55:42 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:38318) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uhgqd-0003Gz-21 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 09:55:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhgqZ-00007f-0S for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 09:55:26 -0400 Original-Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:35963) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhgqY-00006X-PO for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 09:55:22 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r4TDtI1X008487 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 29 May 2013 13:55:19 GMT Original-Received: from userz7021.oracle.com (userz7021.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4TDtI6v014835 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 May 2013 13:55:19 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt102.oracle.com (abhmt102.oracle.com [141.146.116.54]) by userz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4TDtI6G005832; Wed, 29 May 2013 13:55:18 GMT In-Reply-To: <51A5F3F8.3070300@yandex.ru> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.7 (607090) [OL 12.0.6668.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.81 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:91133 Archived-At: > >> I think it's a great change. > >> > > Yes, why? Any good reason? You misquoted. My "why" there was about the lack of discussion prior to th= is change - why no discussion? You make it sound like I asked why you thou= ght this was a great change. Dishonest or an innocent mistake? This is wh= at you should have quoted: DG> > I think it's a great change. da> > > And why no discussion beforehand? da> Yes, why? Any good reason? > > There might well be someone out there who, "personally" or not (?), has > > (another) good argument for keeping things the way they were - at least= as > > an option. Who knows? As Richard often says (especially for changes t= o > > basic, longstanding behavior), why not poll the users? >=20 > They should be able to speak up now, or during the pretest. Nothing is > really set in stone, when it comes to code. That is not a poll of users. And it is not a discusson on emacs-devel by E= macs developers. Instead of willy nilly changing the basic function `revert-buffer', this fe= ature of extra protection against user mistakes (including mistakenly confi= rming reversion!) should be implemented by creating a separate command or u= ser variable (perhaps option) - giving users the choice to use it or not. = If `auto-revert-mode' is also implicated then it can be made sensitive to t= he same (or an additional) user choice. > > Don't you wonder that this came up now seemingly for the first time? D= o > > you think that no one has thought before about whether the undo list sh= ould > > be kept or dropped when reverting? A bit presumptuous, no? >=20 > Obviously not. The opened bug is a couple of years old now. There are thousands of bugs that have been open for a couple of years or mo= re. That means nothing. > > Think about it a bit more. Open it for discussion on emacs-devel. Why > > act so precipitously? Is that "personally" necessary? >=20 > We're having this discussion now, and instead of giving actual reasons > you're speaking of hypothetical users. I gave reasons. 1. This is what reverting means, what reverting does (shou= ld do, always has done). 2. `revert-buffer' is not used only interactively= ; it is a basic function used in lots of code. 3. Users should have a choi= ce (individually). This is like the trash/recycle bin that was added not too long ago. We did= n't just redefine `delete-file' so that it always moves files to the bin, d= id we? Why not? > Talking about personal needs and requirements is good, because every > person is usually competent about those. >=20 > But the way you often assume the you know the userbase better than > everyone else is tiresome, to be honest. I'm not the one assuming anything about the user base. I'm not the one cla= iming competence deciding what is good for everyone. I'm not imposing any= change on the existing behavior. My only assumption about the user base i= s that users deserve control, choice.