Re: bug#44935: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com>]

> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 at 1:59 AM
> From: "Tim Cross" <theophilusx@gmail.com>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: bug#44935: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options
>
>
> Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:
>
> >> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 at 1:09 AM
> >> From: "Tim Cross" <theophilusx@gmail.com>
> >> To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> >> Subject: Re: bug#44935: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options
> >>
> >>
> >> daniela-spit@gmx.it writes:
> >>
> >> >> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 10:51 PM
> >> >> From: "Gyro Funch" <gyromagnetic@gmail.com>
> >> >> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it, "Kyle Meyer" <kyle@kyleam.com>
> >> >> Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> >> >> Subject: Re[2]: bug#44935: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>  Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 10:20 PM
> >> >> >>  From: "Kyle Meyer" <kyle@kyleam.com>
> >> >> >>  To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> >> >> >>  Cc: "gyro funch" <gyromagnetic@gmail.com>, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> >> >> >>  Subject: Re: bug#44935: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>daniela-spit@gmx.it writes:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  >> From: "gyro funch" <gyromagnetic@gmail.com>
> >> >> >>  [...]
> >> >> >>  >> If I'm not mistaken, all of the development is done by volunteers.
> >> >> >>  >>
> >> >> >>  >> Perhaps you could help resolve your issue instead of asking other
> >> >> >>  >> people, who are likely already overworked, to shoulder the burden.
> >> >> >>  >
> >> >> >>  > Is there a mailing list for abuse?  If I want abuse I shall ask for it.
> >> >> >>  > Loser!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>  I don't see anything that gyro said as abuse.  Name calling, on the
> >> >> >>  other hand, has no place on this list.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >One asks for help, and people tell you to go fix it yourself.  If there
> >> >> >is any disrespect, you bring it upon yourselves.  And now you start.
> >> >> >Another Gnu Goon.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have found that people on this list are extremely friendly, courteous,
> >> >> and helpful.
> >> >> I suggest that you look back at the way you asked for/demanded help and
> >> >> the various responses you gave in this thread.
> >> >> Taking on an attitude of entitlement and showing a lack of respect for
> >> >> others, their perspectives, and efforts may not be the best way to get
> >> >> help.
> >> >
> >> > Nonsense.
> >>
> >> Not nonsense at all. You responses have become rude and unhelpful. I can
> >> understand how you may be frustrated by the bug reporting situation, but
> >> your response to that frustration has been to complain and be critical in
> >> a very non-constructive manner. You have now descended into name calling
> >> and personal abuse. You are beginning to exhibit behaviour
> >> which is not welcome here and which will result in people ignoring your
> >> posts. Multiple people have now pointed this out, which should make you
> >> stop and think rather than become emotional and respond defensively.
> >>
> >> the ball is now in your court. How you respond will influence how others
> >> respond to your requests and suggestions going forward.
> >
> > Please be aware that it was pointed out that one can configure
> > org-agenda-skip-unavailable-files to a non-nil value if she wants
> > non-existing/unreadable files to be skipped.
> >
> > But that option isn't mentioned in the manual or the docstring of the
> > org-agenda-files option.  The problem is known and has been a source of great
> > frustration, that's why it was introduced.
> >
> > Daniela is quite right.  If multiple people don't want to help her, that's
> > fine, many others will.
> >
>
> The issue at this point wasn't about whether there is a problem with how
> org manages org-agenda-files or even the acknowledged weakness in the
> documentation which needs a patch. The issue here is about attitude and
> being respectful.
>
> We can disagree on things. Opposing views are a good thing provided the
> expression of these opposing views is done with respect. This means no
> personal attacks, no calling names, no personal abuse.
>
> We all have different levels of sensitivity and some have thicker skin
> than others. However, once multiple people express the opinion that an
> attitude is not appropriate for the list, the responsibility is with the
> originator to consider that feedback and either adjust to meet community
> expectations, leave the community or continue without change and accept
> whatever consequences (if any) the list decides is appropriate.

Ok, let me deal with this.  But please, can we be better ourselves.  Am
sure she wanted to send a report so things get better for others.  She
knew how to solve the problem by only putting a list of files that exist.

Furthermore, we are updating the manual on the available option that
addressed her problem, a detail that was most likely obscure.  Some good
she has done.  We are not doing the work specifically for her,
but to everybody.  Agreed?


> --
> Tim Cross
>