bug#28645: Status: 26.0.50; semantic-ia-fast-jump jumps to a random place in buffer

[martin rudalics]

> I understand. Then this must mean that the change in behavior in CEDET
> was triggered with this commit:
>
> commit ee297210cffb9e8d05912686a39fa158414ba050
> Author: Mark Oteiza <mvoteiza@udel.edu>
> Date:   Thu May 26 21:47:18 2016 -0400

Right.

> I also understand your other arguments. But the question is: While
> your recommendation makes sense, there clearly still is a lot of code
> which uses switch-to-buffer without binding
> switch-to-buffer-preserve-window-point to nil and it wasn't fixed when
> this variable's default was changed. This is true in lisp code shipped
> in emacs and it is probably also true for lots of third party code in
> the wild. Who is going to fix all this code? And if it turns out that
> the fixing all this code is too difficult / impossible, is it
> justified to fix bug #4041 at the cost of causing numerous other bugs
> (which arguably are due to misuse of switch-to-buffer, but they will
> have to be fixed either way)?

This would have the banal consequence that all users who then set
‘switch-to-buffer-preserve-window-point’ to a non-nil value would have
to live with the wrong behavior forever: Nobody would care about fixing
it because "the default" DTRT already.

martin