From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Confused by y-or-n-p Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 12:17:41 -0500 Message-ID: References: <834kkcr1eo.fsf@gnu.org> <87k0t38g1z.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83czyvkts6.fsf@gnu.org> <87bleetirr.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87y2hhri3n.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83pn2tkfg8.fsf@gnu.org> <871rf7ippu.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83a6trg6mc.fsf@gnu.org> <87im8f951f.fsf@gnus.org> <83lfdacapo.fsf@gnu.org> <83wnwsbuwp.fsf@gnu.org> <87mtxo4tph.fsf@gnus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="13418"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: rms@gnu.org, juri@linkov.net, rudalics@gmx.at, Stefan Kangas , Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 04 18:17:48 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 1kwTUI-0003LA-R9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 18:17:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43252 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kwTUH-000671-Pc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 12:17:45 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57906) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kwTSL-0004LT-0g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 12:15:46 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:46032) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kwTSB-0002oM-Fn; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 12:15:43 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 85D1A44091A; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 12:15:33 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A928244081C; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 12:15:05 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1609780505; bh=4owmacg0LdH8Drxsr/ES3Q+31lFEA6UAN8a6U6fjjO4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=HTng9b6NUgIVJghg2izi51eDA6PwNcSEzZroTCC1/4bg+iFrO7NZIZj6/rwt+hnBR 4IPYtVhHobQrcNLnaCoRtZLUyGUrTIfDiA/z1biiCJMqfo0vGazZPZT2SzqfdVkD2B USOlaeIC3cK5a/HbGrB43CzU1wpXtGZAuCxw89+mDggVBZ4dMjdnpZLrPK0l7fhBLZ O3ZYxCgfzpnI31FCh9y5OOnUf6pdjdvRmbFRs95jQ/mTTRYcc992Aj/brbQUA3qZDA rEclLj4uG1D4hva06jXDZhqsly07broPIwzMu9a5N7ZpRwXiDulyI8oF/JOrGRjczV maqvBFTdkrwMA== Original-Received: from lechazo (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9AFCA1204DB; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 12:15:05 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87mtxo4tph.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Mon, 04 Jan 2021 16:17:46 +0100") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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:262448 Archived-At: >> I don't mind having such a process, > Me neither -- I think it sounds like something we should try out. Indeed, it's something we do on a regular basis, but we only do it for changes we presume won't be rejected. I think it would indeed be beneficial to change our habits in this regard and allow ourselves more "daring" changes, with the understanding that there is a higher probability that we may have to revert the default behavior. [ FWIW, I also think there are changes we should keep enabled only on `master` *until* they stop being unpopular. I'm specifically thinking of things like removal of obsolete features. E.g. we could have features obsolete since Emacs-25 removed from `master` right now, but with a way to get them back on-demand, and with the understanding that they will still be present in the Emacs-28 release. ] > I think the most natural person to manage the process would be the > person that's proposing the change. That is, we don't really need much > formalism around this. Agred. > To take the already-mentioned case as an example -- Martin wanted to > have us try out horizontal scroll bars to see whether they work, so he'd > flip them on, and announce on emacs-devel "these default to on for a > week, and then we'll discuss". IME a week is not sufficient: - Many users don't update from `master` on a daily basis. - I `git fetch` daily from `master`, but I don't restart my Emacs sessions all the time (hell, I just tried `M-x emacs-uptime` and this Gnus-dedicated session "says 184 days, 18 hours, 28 minutes, 38 seconds"). - Especially for UI changes (i.e. changes which don't break code but break muscle memory), it often takes a good month of active use before I can honestly say whether I prefer the old or the new behavior (rather than just being irked by the change itself). So I think such changes should be introduced with: - An explicit announcement. - A clear way to get back the old behavior. - A trial period in the order 2-3 months. Stefan