From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Leo Liu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Can we not introduce frivolous indentation change to define-minor-mode? Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 02:49:34 +0800 Message-ID: References: <83d1tg57p6.fsf@gnu.org> <87fuybqdby.fsf@gmail.com> <87lh82vq6t.fsf@gmail.com> <87d1tevmjb.fsf@gmail.com> <87io36k9be.fsf@bernoul.li> <8737uavhcu.fsf@gmail.com> <568D389D.60401@yandex.ru> <87si2au25w.fsf@gmail.com> <83bn8x2wxt.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1452192607 27898 80.91.229.3 (7 Jan 2016 18:50:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 18:50:07 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 07 19:50:03 2016 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 1aHFdI-0002Yl-9K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 19:50:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60151 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHFdC-0008BX-Qw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 13:49:54 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35499) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHFd9-0008BK-As for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 13:49:52 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHFd5-00008Q-Al for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 13:49:51 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:58941) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHFd5-000088-3r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 13:49:47 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aHFd2-0002PA-N6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 19:49:45 +0100 Original-Received: from 128.199.230.246 ([128.199.230.246]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 19:49:44 +0100 Original-Received: from sdl.web by 128.199.230.246 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 19:49:44 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 21 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.199.230.246 Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAACgAAAAoBAMAAAB+0KVeAAAAG1BMVEUAAAA9Cgm3Hx1WWFWA gn+WmJWsrqv4+vcCAwCRl2MkAAAAAXRSTlMAQObYZgAAAAFiS0dEAIgFHUgAAAAJcEhZcwAAAYoA AAGKATOXMFgAAAAHdElNRQfXAQwDNR+ZJmElAAABIklEQVQoz22SPW+DQAyGWUq65qasd9PNUSX4 AZHK2C1rJy5jpDS4IwRVup9dn7GNafpKIPPgzztXFSujqq1eM2n8h22oMkvxI/i9C97kRfMRUN55 dS3BrsAwBXUtMLAO4lryh8kTjOxKpQNniNxAgZOEe4bZwsDTFhKdqZRLNII4OQNHhEuq/RMkm6Cj TnnEA/fk0BorcYn5qA3oaeAxbaBOLrX+9G48NZ2Fzc2tzDM8Q+tMypEOqYHh8mAWaaK3U/cDMOT5 aMZMABgPXc7zPMs1A8DXO756GFJ/4fMEq47hTsAdn5avoxZ4ywl0c2w4Flu2Ybeyb3S+EqxX2DYA H8veJGEDTnHnrXvRaPyt+2kSfK6rfBZ2tUtfP/mR+pR6sX8BUZ/cDV7tvkoAAAAASUVORK5CYII= User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (OS X 10.11.2) Cancel-Lock: sha1:L/8L0vi90x/WjTynvju+6QPwR5A= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 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:197748 Archived-At: On 2016-01-07 09:58 -0800, John Wiegley wrote: >> I'm sorry, but the practice of unilaterally reverting commits of others >> seems unkind to me. I think we should refrain from making changes which are >> under dispute, where the parties have not yet reached an agreement. Doing so >> causes aggravation and animosity we'd better without. > >> John, WDYT? > > 100% agreement. No disagreement here. I don't intend to appear unkind or anything like that. I hope my message doesn't suggest that. I have weighted on the comments provided and taken the action accordingly based on the fact that it is an incompatible change and controversial on a few points. Cheers, Leo