From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: RCS, again: another removed functionality: undo last-checkin Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 23:16:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <87oagx6tzz.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <55FF4026.2050004@yandex.ru> <83si68nu4i.fsf@gnu.org> <87eghsfd3m.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83k2rknr2c.fsf@gnu.org> <87mvwellmg.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <56023A6C.3020302@yandex.ru> <5602BE3E.1050009@yandex.ru> <5602C4DE.8020105@yandex.ru> <560B4899.2070708@yandex.ru> <83y4fobegc.fsf@gnu.org> <560BC73C.4040403@yandex.ru> <83d1x0atb2.fsf@gnu.org> <560C9EDA.3040207@yandex.ru> <83vbar9hv3.fsf@gnu.org> <560D2CFD.50702@yandex.ru> <83a8s2agar.fsf@gnu.org> <560D6F13.3090005@yandex.ru> <52e0ce3a-c64a-4c17-9e26-0fab7658f5dc@default> <560DCAC9.2080707@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 1443766621 25657 80.91.229.3 (2 Oct 2015 06:17:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 06:17:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: stephen@xemacs.org, dak@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov , Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 02 08:16:48 2015 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 1ZhteC-0004Sa-GD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 08:16:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57691 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhteB-0005Dj-NH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:16:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38907) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zhte6-0005DU-Ha for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:16:43 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zhte5-00061k-E9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:16:42 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:41954) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zhte1-00060c-8a; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:16:37 -0400 Original-Received: from userv0022.oracle.com (userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id t926GXgt011667 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 2 Oct 2015 06:16:34 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by userv0022.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t926GWI2024517 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 2 Oct 2015 06:16:32 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0009.oracle.com (abhmp0009.oracle.com [141.146.116.15]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t926GOSS029026; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 06:16:31 GMT In-Reply-To: <560DCAC9.2080707@yandex.ru> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.69 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:190641 Archived-At: > Focusing exclusively on the existing user base Strawman argument. No one has suggested doing such a thing. > means you don't optimize for the new users, and when the older > generations pass away, Emacs is more likely to die with them. Existing vs new users is not about old vs young users. Existing, sometimes organizational, installations of Emacs are not about old vs young users. Or even about experienced vs newbie users. Plenty of new Emacs users use old versions that are installed in their organization, and in situations where they cannot install a newer version. Old vs young, indeed! You are playing to the gallery with such arguments. Believe it or not, existing, sometimes quite old versions of Emacs are actually used by many people who do real work. Including young developers and Emacs newbies. It's not about "focusing exclusively" on such users. But it is about keeping them in mind. They are, or should be, one important consideration for Emacs development. > > Many users use tools, including Emacs that are installed > > organization-wide (e.g., company-wide). >=20 > If a company mandates the version of Emacs, it could as > well coordinate it with the VCS the company uses. So it seems it is not only individual Emacs users whose "workflows" need to change to fit your development - it is also company tools and workflows. Sheesh. And IIUC, that's already coordinated by Emacs, with its various `vc-*' functions. But my reply had nothing to do, particularly, with the current specific discussion about `vc-*' commands. I responded to your _general_ argument expressing your apparent willingness to sacrifice user workflows, backward compatibility, and our existing user base - your general criticism of Eli's prioritizing not breaking backward compatibility. You think of such consideration as "one of the most tedious parts of the Emacs ecosystem." I don't. Eli is right to give importance to backward compatibility, and it's a shame that this view is so little shared here. That has not always been the case. Yes, I suppose it is, to some degree, about your personal "tedium", as you and your contributions are a valued part of "the Emacs ecosystem" - we don't want to sacrifice them. (I am not being facetious at all.) But that goes only so far. Your tedium is only one important consideration, IMHO. Users count too. Backward compatibility is all about users. It's not about you. Unfortunately, yes, taking backward compatibility into account can mean more work for maintainers. But Emacs maintainers should have Emacs users foremost in mind. Not all users care about backward compatibility. But some do. All maintainers should therefore care about backward compatibility (IMHO). You like to point out the danger of Emacs stagnating or slipping into oblivion. Well IMHO, you need look no further than this, for a threat to Emacs remaining vibrant and relevant 20 or 40 years from now: maintainers who think too much about their own tedium and not enough about Emacs users. If you ask me how Emacs has managed to remain healthy and relevant all these many years, my answer is the dedication of its maintainers to its users, and in particular the over-the-top, "abnormal" concern of RMS and Eli (& others) for such silly, old-fashioned things as documentation and backward compatibility. May we get more like them.