Re: Changed list indentation behavior: how to revert?

[Loris Bennett]

Stefan Nobis <stefan-ml@snobis.de> writes:

> "Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide" <arne_bab@web.de> writes:
>
>> Sad story short:...
>
> I'm with you - last weekend I upgrade my OS and had quite some trouble
> to get everything working again and still have some nasty hoops to
> jump through.
>
> But on the other side: What are we talking about?
>
> Org had a given default configuration for quite some time. To be
> clear: THIS DID NOT CHANGE!
>
> But some people are upset now. Why? Because the emergent behaviour
> changed. Not the underlying default configuration, but in the context
> and details of how each individual uses Org for some users the default
> configuration was emergent and evident, but some other users did not
> perceive this default configuration.
>
> Now a simple setting, syncing Org with the defaults of Emacs and other
> modes with respect to RET and electric-indent-mode, make the OLD,
> UNCHANGED default configuration emergent for almost all users.
>
> These are very subtle effects inside a very complex environment.
>
> How should maintainers be able to foresee all possible environments
> and use cases and the resulting emergent behaviour?
>
> I'm really surprised that such a simple and insignificant breaking
> change results in such a uproar. If a new Org version make all old
> files completely unusable or a bunch of important features is totally
> broken, say nothing of babel works anymore - yes, is such a case I
> would understand the uproar.
>
> But ranting so loudly and insistent and continuously over such a minor
> details is really beyond me.
>
> And nobody has to read all NEWS and Changelogs for every single peace
> of software they are using. If nothing breaks maybe there is nothing
> to worry about. If some minor detail like the new emergent indentation
> behaviour annoys you - just have a quick look in the NEWS file of the
> new version. Is this really that hard?
>
> On the other hand: What's the alternative? Never change anything
> again? Maybe some users rely on the emergent behaviour of some bad
> bug (that has bad consequences for some other users). Should it never
> be changed, because it may annoy some users and they could be forced
> to read the NEWS file?
>
> You cannot have the cookie and eat it!
>
> So, everyone, please calm down and try not to overreact over really
> simple, negligible details.

To quote Randall Munroe:

"Every change breaks someone's workflow"[1]

Footnotes: 
[1]  https://xkcd.com/1172/

-- 
This signature is currently under construction.