Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2) [Documentation fix still remaining]

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Daniel Colascione <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 09:26:38 -0700
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> 
> > We are talking about code that runs virtually
> > unchanged for many years.  Making significant changes in it needs a
> > good reason.  When such good reasons emerge, we can discuss whether
> > they justify the risks.  For now, the reasons presented do not.
> 
> What criteria are you using to determine whether a bug is sufficiently 
> serious to fix? What would convince you that a change in this behavior 
> is warranted?

I described up-thread what would constitute a good enough reason for
me to consider such changes for admission.  Here's the list again:

  . a bug that affects (i.e. breaks) the core code itself (e.g., see
    bug#5131 fixed in 00b6647 as a recent example related to insdel.c)
  . a problem that affects several Lisp packages for which there's no
    reasonably practical workaround/fix as part of the package itself
  . refactoring done as part of introducing a significant new feature

Please note that not every change/bugfix is required to pass such
scrutiny, only changes in code that is very central to Emacs
operation.  I think manipulation of buffer text, display engine, basic
file I/O, and encoding/decoding stuff are such areas.  Changes that
affect some aspects of more local, specialized behavior are normally
less risky.  IOW, there's still a judgment call needed in each case,
so that the above is applicable to as few changes as possible.