Re: Possible change to startup.el

[Kim F. Storm]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

>> Is this really a _very important improvement_?
>>
>> Why is this _more important_ than reporting sensible menu bindings?
>
> It was a reaction due to actual user feedback about a perceived
> shortcoming, so its relative importance _could_ be argued.

I never intended to start making comparisons of relative importance of
each and every suggested change -- but RMS says we shall focus on
fixing bugs and that he will only accept "very important improvements"
before the release.  That's fine, and I really doubt that _any_
improvement at this time can be considered "very important".

So based on that I can understand why minor improvement A was rejected
last week, but then I don't understand why minor improvement B is
accepted this week.  What improvements will be accepted next week?


> Kim, I am obviously supportive of your patch for the sake of our
> users [...] and I don't agree with (actually find it hard
> to understand) Richard's assessment of its irrelevancy.  

I obviously agree :-) but still I can accept the rejection (at this
time) based on the argument that it is not a "very important
improvement" for 22.x.

But then I would expect a similar rejection of other suggestions
that are not "very important improvements".  

>                                                          But a
> perceived shortcoming in one issue should not be used for blocking
> progress in other areas.

IMO, the only acceptable "progress area" at this time is "completing
the release".  Any other kind of "progress" should be rejected.

>  If one has
> a strong opinion about something, it is hard to accept that others may
> see it as mostly irrelevant.

Yes, I can accept objective reasons for a rejection -- a subjective
rejection based on "irrelevance" is harder to accept :-)

> We are all trying to make Emacs the best that is possible, after all.

Sadly, making "the best that is possible" often seems to take focus
away from "finalizing the release" based on what we already have which
IMO is "good enough"...   (I'm no better than others in that respect :-)

-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk