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: Upcoming loss of usability of Emacs source files and Emacs. Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:43:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20150615142237.GA3517@acm.fritz.box> <87y4jkhqh5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1434390232 15886 80.91.229.3 (15 Jun 2015 17:43:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:43:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" , Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 15 19:43:38 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 1Z4YQ5-0002pe-MS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:43:37 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35784 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z4YQ4-0005mi-Ty for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 13:43:36 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41983) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z4YQ0-0005jS-Iw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 13:43:33 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z4YPx-0002AD-CU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 13:43:32 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:35807) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z4YPx-00029p-7L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 13:43:29 -0400 Original-Received: from aserv0021.oracle.com (aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id t5FHhRq6008947 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:43:27 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by aserv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5FHhRsH008444 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:43:27 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0015.oracle.com (abhmp0015.oracle.com [141.146.116.21]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5FHhRsS024543; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:43:27 GMT In-Reply-To: <87y4jkhqh5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233] 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:187189 Archived-At: > Despite what I wrote above, I don't see a need for this, it is > going to be a PITA for quite a few individuals (even if they're > a small fraction), so I'm basically +0 on it. Yippee! For once I agree with an occurrence of Stephen's recurrent "YAGNI" bray. *No need* for this change. Beyond that, this change is at best a blunder. It should be reverted. It is not just cosmetic. > Just as some users dislike changes, possibly a lot, others dislike > the status quo ante, possibly a lot. Why should a few reactionary > curmudgeons :-) hold the progressives back? Demagogy & pandering, despite the smily. Opposition to a particular change, giving particular reasons, is not tantamount to knee-jerk, reactionary opposition to change in general. For shame. We see this kind of slight-of-hand charlatanism employed all too often - those opposed to a purported innovation are branded as "afraid of change". It is not about change vs no-change in general. It is about this change. For the same reason, though a superficial poll (of readers here or of Emacs users) can tell us something, good arguments for and against are generally more helpful. > It used to be a Bad Thing[tm]. Now, modern VCS means that such > changes can be made and reverted quickly (although not always > effortlessly or without help of developers experienced in the > software), so rather than poll, just give them what you think they > need. If they don't like it, you revert. That method provides far > more accurate assessments of user sentiment than polling in advance, > and is less costly (unless you're stupid enough to make such a > change in a late beta). I'm not convinced. Momentum. Inertia. And there is no good reason *not* to bring such matters up for discussion first (here, for example), and that can include discussion with users. > Of course the proponents have to be cooperative. I know that Paul > has a reasonably high opinion of his own opinions ;-), but I've also > seen him revert patches for reasons of "general user taste", and with > very little backtalk, on request. Consider this one such request, by one user.