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 09:33:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <87mwrwede7.fsf@wanadoo.es> <8738t6tqie.fsf@yandex.ru> <92f42e8d-b6a8-4f2e-bd1d-c717f1ea9dd0@default> <51A5F3F8.3070300@yandex.ru> <93506dfd-1e77-4dec-acad-82872f9bc428@default> <51A61D01.8070904@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 1369845218 1681 80.91.229.3 (29 May 2013 16:33:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 16:33:38 +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 18:33:37 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 1UhjJg-0005xs-NN for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 18:33:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57175 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhjJg-0004DY-7V for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:33:36 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:38187) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhjJU-0004BH-G0 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:33:25 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhjJS-0000BN-Qy for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:33:24 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:43446) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhjJS-00009H-LL for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:33:22 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r4TGXKt5029984 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 29 May 2013 16:33:21 GMT Original-Received: from aserz7021.oracle.com (aserz7021.oracle.com [141.146.126.230]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4TGXJjj010693 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 May 2013 16:33:20 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt114.oracle.com (abhmt114.oracle.com [141.146.116.66]) by aserz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4TGXJFq010688; Wed, 29 May 2013 16:33:19 GMT In-Reply-To: <51A61D01.8070904@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: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] 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: 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:91143 Archived-At: > > why no discussion? >=20 > Who were you agreeing with, there? Agreeing with? It's a question. > Because discussing every single thing takes more time and effort, and > most people have a limited amount of them. It's not like you're > sponsoring the development, right? >=20 > And, like it often happens, people with a lot of opinions are often the > least qualified to make a decision. See "bikeshedding". Doesn't matter. It would have been better to open the proposal for discussion. There was a discussion about adding remove-to-trash-bin behavior, for instance, and that feature did not even _replace_ the existing file-deletion behavior. Those offering opinions are not, in general, those deciding. Discussing is not the same thing as deciding. Discussion is not and should not be limited to only those who decide, or even to only those who are most qualified. Just because someone qualified will decide does not mean that there should be no discussion before the decision, including contributions by those you might judge "least qualified". > > And it is not a discusson on emacs-devel by Emacs developers. >=20 > Again, are you an Emacs developer? You aren't. What do you care? That remark bespeaks an arrogant attitude toward Emacs users. Lots of Emacs users care about the development of Emacs. They do not need to justify such care to anyone, including to you. > Emacs committers are subscribed to emacs-diff or emacs-bugs, and if some > aren't, they should. Anyone disagreeing can voice their opinion. > Preferably without speaking for other people. Blah. > > Instead of willy nilly changing the basic function `revert-buffer', > > this feature of extra protection against user mistakes (including > > mistakenly confirming reversion!) should be implemented by creating > > a separate command or user 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 the same (or an additional) user choic= e. >=20 > The "extra protection" feature means that the new behavior makes sense > as default. Maybe so. But it was not made the _default_ behavior. It was made _the_ behavior - more than just the default. The new behavior replaces the old. > So, a hypothetical new variable would revert the behavior to how it were > before, but setting a new variable isn't too different from advising > `revert-buffer', from a user's perspective. It's a lot different. You should know that. > > I'm not the one assuming anything about the user base. I'm not the one > > claiming competence deciding what is good for everyone. I'm not > > imposing any change on the existing behavior. My only assumption about > > the user base is that users deserve control, choice. >=20 > You're assuming that the old behavior is important enough ...that a change should be proposed and open for discussion on the dev list= . That's all. > for a decent amount of users to justify the expense of discussing it, > adding a separate command, new variable, whatever, documenting it, and > then maintaining these additions over the years. That's not a safe > assumption. No, I don't assume any of that. I just think this should have been propose= d for discussion on the dev list, so we might hear from people with different uses and more knowledge (than I have, at least). Instead, we just get a fe= w knee-jerk reactions of "I like it!" on the help list. Well, FWIW, I happen to like it too, for my personal interactive use. And FWIW I have been using it for quite a while now. Surprised? I'm just not sure it is a great idea for Emacs (i.e., all users) as an unconditional _replacement_ behavior. That's all. Unqualified to judge, no doubt. But would like to have heard from more, including some who are qualified. Can I be clearer? I am not saying this change should not be made. I'm saying I don't know whether it should be made, and there was no discussion about it, which is too bad. Discussion might have made any issues clear, perhaps boosting confidence in the decision. Even for minor changes we often see "Any objections?" in the dev list. That's a courtesy, but it is also a safeguard to some extent. This change was not even brought up. I asked why. Your answer was that this is an unimportant, uncontroversial change not worth remarking or discussing. To you, discussion of this would be bikeshedding. I am not so sure as you. > And the one user with special needs who does care about it can change > the behavior with `defadvice'. Wunderbar.