Re: master 72b1379f079: Increase `emacs-lisp-docstring-fill-column` to 72

[Adam Porter]

On 2/3/24 05:04, Po Lu wrote:

> Where the twenty year old default value of a variable is concerned, the
> decision is not whether to retain the old value but whether to change
> it.

Aren't those two ways of describing the same decision?

> > I'm not sure what you mean.  I don't think my stance is absolute;
> > rather, it's more that we should use good judgment in each case rather
> > than a set of rules.
>
> I meant that you implied the existence of a binary choice between a vote
> among all users and relying on the completely arbitrary judgment of one
> person.

Apparently I misunderstood you to be requesting a democratic poll about 
changing the option's value.  We seem to agree that that would be 
impractical and inappropriate.

But I don't understand what you mean about the judgment of one person 
being insufficient.  I have in the past objected to such a decision 
(although one that is much more impactful)[0], but aren't the 
maintainers appointed to make such decisions?

> > Ok, but where should the line be drawn between allowing maintainers to
> > make such minor changes according to their judgment, and requiring
> > some arbitrary amount of discussion beforehand?  What if the
> > maintainers' judgment is that sufficient discussion has happened?
>
> I don't think it's wise to enter into a dispute on the extent to which
> relativism applies to Emacs, since most of my premises are accepted by
> everyone involved, specifically in relation to this change.  Namely that
> there should be a rationale and opportunity for comment, references to
> both of which figured in the commit description.  My problem is that any
> reasonable person will agree that the discussion linked was not in the
> least productive and is too distant in time to be a suitable factor for
> decision-making.

I don't understand: You say you want decisions like this to be made more 
publicly and after suitable discussion, but you decline to provide any 
criteria by which one could judge whether such a decision warranted such 
a process, or whether such a process was suitable; and you also say that 
a maintainer shouldn't make such a judgment call.  That doesn't seem to 
leave room for decisions to be made by any means.

> > Weren't those formats designed decades ago?  Don't our screens have
> > orders of magnitude more pixels now?  Should we be limited by those
> > old limitations forever?
>
> That's not our choice, but Texinfo's.

I'm confused: Do you mean that Emacs's docstrings should be limited by 
Texinfo's limitations?  Earlier you said, "As for Info and 'many other 
things', they are not doc strings, and should not be factors in 
decisions regarding them."

> > I understand your procedural objection.  Besides that, is there a
> > technical problem you object to?
>
> As I said, I object to both, but to the former much more than to the
> latter.

So I guess that would call for a thread about Emacs's development 
procedures, but as I noted, you seem to be declining to discuss that 
matter specifically.  So what is left?

0: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2022-11/msg01406.html