From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thibaut Verron Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Concern about new binding. Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 22:15:42 +0100 Message-ID: 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> <87a6sjpyqs.fsf@gnus.org> <838s83ra3q.fsf@gnu.org> <87mtwjocn7.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft2bim5q.fsf@gmail.com> Reply-To: thibaut.verron@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="35155"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?K=C3=A9vin_Le_Gouguec?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 04 22:17:31 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 1l7m0I-00091y-WD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 22:17:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49112 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7m0I-000288-13 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:17:30 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50716) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7lyc-0000l3-MK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:15:46 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-yb1-xb34.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::b34]:41798) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7lyb-0006uB-2o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:15:46 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-yb1-xb34.google.com with SMTP id e132so4605442ybh.8 for ; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 13:15:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zGhjAyPMDCQpHUYwNwv1TGAfB+tlYXF4q0FuhSqHows=; b=tC1SsPrRS5uDE6J78V3ypM/xSuEKgwrE896ON2S0ZVFx+uSZbMxExGDFaH3NivJ5eN /OCWeEe53zz4e+xpFHS7NJ3jmuDPFJjgLmdwW7cRMgpqGcWVdRRvNapRJPib/u4delI0 SuJGqr1qMIVWGLlrQz/4xHGpPyiBjLBoGqgu3BHVKYNHaaPm8GXMpFORYl6c5IOBgHnK CgKe6vNaCaAil5vVK6EtQs485/xXHuogJy92m1YLtnSVROCu+Wu5oQr5xMb5Wzp8JJMY oEYtXhDmH17wNJiRpdpfqtg1RQ8t1pHo09up7441NV14CxAuBIHRh0nT7BkuEA400xZL W7qA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zGhjAyPMDCQpHUYwNwv1TGAfB+tlYXF4q0FuhSqHows=; b=avIdr5hQ/IlYiaWefd5UlBNTXZcv9jg+T4qf+d1rwk7pTDOHqDBIf2rAuZ9IuLSRbZ V9DFRs9uvyG2fw1CHGtL5tb6WjtLpwy2iWSrRLt0FaKum0APDhQtp5B3/5yiaV80/uV0 DxR5WEfiPVDehOXZWowtnRbJ7zn2jFz50RPpAzaczA/73m28jADvd3b0l5dRGoZLfrQH t9uzdg6n9g9n23I3rKsgRuh+t3UD2KPSXu8aibc8RZTcGkm+gD9W8r7ri6v+ISPWgMOt 8Sau/E+/XedR+Xlm3hlYlTH6wCSA1Fs9r/iVKczptA9K2pmvJB9znNAWBiMiZpXJ4HoT El2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5313YMVBFGMeoV7er6AiuwIqVNXQz0CrZ1tgjezC3sPxqXoyKoq7 EeJU1EbcrW5z8GC2Pi6iArnkD67OAbb20z2fnlw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw9/O5rEHa3NYOeAYJ0Tn4Nq7a8jqGsgkW7Pf+rKFHCpQK5xRJRhh0NdDFswNhkvcWcLL9GU0ZBdixG7C7s+7k= X-Received: by 2002:a25:6d8a:: with SMTP id i132mr1760845ybc.337.1612473343305; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 13:15:43 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 2002:a05:7110:6187:b029:31:9798:b166 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 13:15:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87ft2bim5q.fsf@gmail.com> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::b34; envelope-from=thibaut.verron@gmail.com; helo=mail-yb1-xb34.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:263919 Archived-At: 2021-02-04 22:00 UTC+01:00, K=C3=A9vin Le Gouguec : > Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > >> The one concern about the `C-x g' binding is that Magit already >> recommends it, but it's unclear to me how many people actually use it, >> and what it's bound to. Is it just a global binding for `M-x magit'? >> >> Presumably Magit users who've bound it to that will continue to do so... >> and then they'll miss the new binding(s) under `C-x g', but I guess >> that's up to each individual user. > > To clarify: > > - C-x g is bound to magit-status, which is Magit's main entry point, > > - Magit includes an autoloaded form that binds C-x g if > - that key sequence is not bound to anything else, and > - magit-status is not already bound, and > - the user hasn't set an explicit "dont-do-that" variable. > > (Same goes for two other bindings: C-x M-g for magit-dispatch, and C-c > M-g for magit-file-dispatch.) > > So adding a default binding for C-x g *will* change how Magit behaves in > its default configuration. > > > I struggle to form a solid stance about the change under discussion: > > - I wouldn't find it outlandish for Magit to do something similar to > rg.el: provide a function (say magit-enable-default-bindings) that > users can call in their init file to easily setup some bindings under > a prefix (that would default to C-c g). So to be clear, we would ask hundreds/thousands/whatever of users to add a change to their init file and possibly change a binding they use daily, in order to either make room for, or override a binding they mostly never asked for? If revert-buffer is to be a new binding (with others or not) is it not worth trying to find a keymap which does not conflict with one of the (if not the) most popular of emacs' 3rd party packages? > - I find C-x g somewhat awkward as a prefix for buffer commands. Not > really mnemonic, at least. Whereas it is a good mnemonic for 'G'it.