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

[Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>]

Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:

>> 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?
>

Agreed. My only issue was when things degraded into personal attacks and
insults. While I don't subscribe to the belief every opinion is valid, I
do subscribe to the belief everyone has the right to express an opinion,
provided it is respectful. I also believe when someone expresses an
opinion in a manner which lacks such respect, we need to call it out so
that the individual becomes aware of what is expected or when what they
have written may not have come across correctly. This is a
multi-cultural community where English is not necessarily the posters
native language and communication can break down because of cultural and
language differences. As far as I'm concerned, both the underlying issue
relating to org-adenda-files is mostly dealt with and expectations
regarding communication standards have been communicated.

I say mostly dealt with because I'm not sure that org *should* update
the org-agenda-files list when a missing file is identified and org has
not been told to ignore missing files. I need to experiment with this to
clarify my position, but based on what I've read in the thread which
clarified the issue, I suspect org should report a warning, but not
modify the variable in a permanent manner by writing it to the custom
section. It could set the variable for the current session if that is
required to prevent other issues, but not store it for future sessions.

I don't think the original bug report was very clear on precisely what
the issue was. This is not uncommon with bug reports, but I suspect
language differences may have played a role here.

--
Tim Cross