Re: Changed list indentation behavior: how to revert?

[Greg Minshall]

i wonder if a grid might help?  i.e., contexts in which we are all
happy, others where we might disagree?  below, i try; i'm sure i've
missed cases.

question: what does <RET> do/would we like it to do when we are in?

=========================================
tables: next row, current column

Org Src buffers: electric-indent per declared language major
mode rules.

src blocks: same as in Org Src buffers (i think there have been some
very nice "recent" improvements here, which are great, and for which,
belated thanks!)

^^   i think we are all happy with those
=========================================
=========================================
vv   here, i think, well, "Houston, ..." :)

after n* heading:
    column 1
  vs
    column n+2

list entry (end of line):
    column where previous "-" was (to start a new list item)
  vs
    two columns *after* where previous "-" was (to continue with the
    current list item)

immediately after (non-blank, non-list, non-heading) with text starting
in column n:
    column 1
  vs
    column n

immediately after a blank line:
    column 1
  vs
    column of first non-blank character of most recent non-blank line?
=========================================

surveymonkey, anyone?  :)  not to vote, but i'm curious to what extent
we divide cleanly into two groups (in which case, maybe an option for
which "major mode indentation" style one prefers for org-mode makes
sense), or if we are uniformly distributed across the power set. :)

btw, it seems to me that M-q (fill-paragraph) also has *something* to
say here.  i.e., though *i* want <RET> from a list entry to line me up
at the previous "-", i want M-q within a list entry to add new lines
starting two columns past that point.  i guess i see it as orthogonal
(and, so far, non-controversial) to the current discussion, and hope it
so stays!

cheers, Greg