[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding.
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding. |
Date: |
Wed, 03 Feb 2021 19:13:43 +0200 |
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> CC: "spacibba@aol.com" <spacibba@aol.com>
> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 16:12:01 +0000
>
> > FTR, that bug report was a feature request (and for a new key binding
> > at that), so the fact it ended up introducing a new key binding
> > shouldn't surprise anyone.
>
> It was about a particular mode, not about a
> global key for reverting buffers in general.
The original suggestion was about a minor mode, but while discussing
the solution, several people agreed that a more general solution would
make sense. There's nothing wrong here. It's entirely within a
legitimate process of discussing a proposal for an improvement, and
it's entirely adequate for the maintainers to decide they prefer a
more general solution to what originally was a more narrow one.
> That's the problem: the discussion of a narrow
> feature request and possible solutions turned
> into a wider discussion. _And_ someone there
> decided to change Emacs to add a global key
> for reverting buffers.
There's no problem here, none. This is how Emacs development worked
for decades, and this is how it works now. Please stop
misrepresenting a completely legitimate process of deciding on a
solution as if it were some kind of coup d'état. It isn't. Nothing
untowardly happened during the discussions of that issue, and the
decision was entirely adequate.
> That a bug/enhancement discussion can range
> wider is not unusual or bad. But when it
> comes to making wide-ranging changes to Emacs
> it's maybe time to move that wider discussion
> to emacs-devel. That's the point (IMO).
The "maybe" part assumes some space for a judgment call, so it's
unclear to me why you claim that the decision not to start such a
discussion ahead of the commit must necessarily be wrong.
> > It is of course OK to start here a discussion about any change that
> > could have unintended or adverse consequences, as Ergus did in this
> > case. I see nothing wrong with having such discussions after the
> > change is installed.
>
> 100% agreement. It's not too late to discuss
> this, and to remove that new key binding.
Then what is the problem, exactly? what are you arguing about, when
the discussion _was_ started, and _is_ happening?
> IMO, the binding should be removed until/unless
> the discussion here leads to a decision to add
> it back again.
Please wait till the discussion comes to its conclusion.
Re: Concern about new binding., Richard Stallman, 2021/02/03
- Re: Concern about new binding., Kévin Le Gouguec, 2021/02/03
- Re: Concern about new binding., Eli Zaretskii, 2021/02/03
- RE: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Drew Adams, 2021/02/03
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding.,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Ergus, 2021/02/03
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Eli Zaretskii, 2021/02/03
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Ergus, 2021/02/03
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Stefan Kangas, 2021/02/03
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Ergus, 2021/02/04
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Eli Zaretskii, 2021/02/04
- Re: Concern about new binding., Gregory Heytings, 2021/02/04
- Re: Concern about new binding., Eli Zaretskii, 2021/02/04
- Re: Concern about new binding., Gregory Heytings, 2021/02/04
- Re: Concern about new binding., Richard Stallman, 2021/02/05