[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Confused by y-or-n-p
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Confused by y-or-n-p |
Date: |
Thu, 07 Jan 2021 16:09:15 +0200 |
> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 23:57:02 +0000
> From: Gregory Heytings <ghe@sdf.org>
> cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>, rudalics@gmx.at,
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org,
> juri@linkov.net
>
> Otherwise, you would have proposed a guideline. Which would be a fine
> proposal, and AFAICT equivalent to what we have already.
>
> Perhaps I did not look at the right place
The right place to look is in the discussions of the various changes,
where this guideline is voiced loud and clear.
> but I do not see such a rule or guideline in CONTRIBUTE or elsewhere. What do
> you (and others) think of the following:
CONTRIBUTE is not the right place for this. It is a document for
contributors, not for Emacs maintainers, and it describes rules, not
guidelines. It is also already too large, and we risk losing the
attention of the "TL;DR" type of impatient readers.
I'm not convinced that we should have a document with guidelines, IME
it is very hard to formulate guidelines without risking too rigid
interpretation by someone.
> ... developers start working on something thinking that scratching
> the current state of affairs to create something they believe is better
> without thinking about backwards compatibility ...
>
> Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that this has happened?
>
> It happened with y-or-n-p
The question was whether there's such a _tendency_, not whether
there are exceptions from the rule.
> It is happening in the "Stop frames stealing each other's minibuffers" thread
No, it doesn't. In fact, the exact opposite happens there: an
assumption that the existing behavior is a bug was later reversed
based on feedback from you and others.
> Again this would not have happened with the above guideline.
Of course, it would: we will never have a rule to allow going back to
buggy behavior, so as long as the past behavior is considered a bug,
there can be no rule that prevents its removal without any
compatibility shims.
> My fear was that if the same request had been made by someone else it would
> have been dismissed
Fear based on what? I invite you to read the discussions of such
complaints, and see for yourself whether you have anything to that
effect to fear of.
- Re: Confused by y-or-n-p, (continued)
- Re: Confused by y-or-n-p, Richard Stallman, 2021/01/09
- Re: Confused by y-or-n-p, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/09
- Following etc/NEWS on the development branch (was: Confused by y-or-n-p), Kévin Le Gouguec, 2021/01/09
- Re: Following etc/NEWS on the development branch (was: Confused by y-or-n-p), Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/09
- Re: Following etc/NEWS on the development branch, Kévin Le Gouguec, 2021/01/09
- Re: Confused by y-or-n-p, Gregory Heytings, 2021/01/09
- Re: Confused by y-or-n-p, Richard Stallman, 2021/01/10
- Re: Confused by y-or-n-p,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Confused by y-or-n-p, Gregory Heytings, 2021/01/07
- Re: Confused by y-or-n-p, Stefan Monnier, 2021/01/07
- Re: Confused by y-or-n-p, Gregory Heytings, 2021/01/09
- Re: Confused by y-or-n-p, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/08
- Stealing minibuffers [Was: Confused by y-or-n-p], Richard Stallman, 2021/01/09
- Re: Stealing minibuffers [Was: Confused by y-or-n-p], Gregory Heytings, 2021/01/09
- Re: Stealing minibuffers [Was: Confused by y-or-n-p], Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/09
- Re: Confused by y-or-n-p, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/06
- Re: Confused by y-or-n-p, Richard Stallman, 2021/01/07
- Re: Confused by y-or-n-p, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/07