From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Possible change to startup.el Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:19:25 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1112309209 25348 80.91.229.2 (31 Mar 2005 22:46:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:46:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ttn@glug.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 01 00:46:46 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DH8Q3-0001ae-9N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:45:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DH8gp-0004il-RI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:03:03 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DH8en-0003Ln-Mr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:00:58 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DH8ei-0003Jt-Qo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:00:55 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DH8Zn-0000hB-QY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:55:47 -0500 Original-Received: from [195.41.46.235] (helo=pfepa.post.tele.dk) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DH80B-0005I9-V7; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:19:00 -0500 Original-Received: from kfs-l.imdomain.dk.cua.dk (0x503e2644.bynxx3.adsl-dhcp.tele.dk [80.62.38.68]) by pfepa.post.tele.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id D268E47FE11; Fri, 1 Apr 2005 00:18:57 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: David Kastrup In-Reply-To: (David Kastrup's message of "Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:43:55 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:35446 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:35446 David Kastrup writes: >> Is this really a _very important improvement_? >> >> Why is this _more important_ than reporting sensible menu bindings? > > It was a reaction due to actual user feedback about a perceived > shortcoming, so its relative importance _could_ be argued. I never intended to start making comparisons of relative importance of each and every suggested change -- but RMS says we shall focus on fixing bugs and that he will only accept "very important improvements" before the release. That's fine, and I really doubt that _any_ improvement at this time can be considered "very important". So based on that I can understand why minor improvement A was rejected last week, but then I don't understand why minor improvement B is accepted this week. What improvements will be accepted next week? > Kim, I am obviously supportive of your patch for the sake of our > users [...] and I don't agree with (actually find it hard > to understand) Richard's assessment of its irrelevancy. I obviously agree :-) but still I can accept the rejection (at this time) based on the argument that it is not a "very important improvement" for 22.x. But then I would expect a similar rejection of other suggestions that are not "very important improvements". > But a > perceived shortcoming in one issue should not be used for blocking > progress in other areas. IMO, the only acceptable "progress area" at this time is "completing the release". Any other kind of "progress" should be rejected. > If one has > a strong opinion about something, it is hard to accept that others may > see it as mostly irrelevant. Yes, I can accept objective reasons for a rejection -- a subjective rejection based on "irrelevance" is harder to accept :-) > We are all trying to make Emacs the best that is possible, after all. Sadly, making "the best that is possible" often seems to take focus away from "finalizing the release" based on what we already have which IMO is "good enough"... (I'm no better than others in that respect :-) -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk