emacs-orgmode
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] [ANN] BREAKING CHANGE -- removing #+BABEL file-wide property lin


From: Eric Schulte
Subject: Re: [O] [ANN] BREAKING CHANGE -- removing #+BABEL file-wide property lines
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 09:17:31 -0600
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux)

Nick Dokos <address@hidden> writes:

> Nick Dokos <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
>> Can we please back off this path? 
>
> In order to prevent confusion or needless argument: the path I think we
> should back off of is the committing of these changes to master - I think
> the work should be done in a branch and cooked thoroughly before merging
> it to master.
>

I would agree that these changes should be happening in branches if the
problems were technical, however the issues that need to be addressed
are social issues of consensus, and for better or worse pushing changes
to the master branch is the best way to alert all interested actors and
begin the consensus-building process.

If these changes had been pushed up to a branch they would be sitting
happily in that branch with no-one noticing or objecting.  They had been
discussed at length on list before their implementation and commitance,
but this most recent round of discussion was caused by a push to the
master branch.

This is also after all the development repository, and while I do try
very hard never to break this head of this repository at the same time I
think it is an acceptable place to try out new functionality.

>
> I did not mean to imply (although I think one could easily get that impression
> from my mail) backing off the property implementation (despite my personal
> reservations about that).
>

OK, good, because I *do* think that properties are a natural fit for
specifying code block parameters.  The use of subtree properties has
already proven itself, and file-wide properties are a natural extension
(much more natural than the introduction of a #+BABEL: header argument).

While there is certainly some pain in this process I think it is nailing
down both the needs for code block properties as well as the scope of
what is and is not desirable functionality for properties in general.

Best -- Eric

>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Eric Schulte
http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]