RE: RCS, again: another removed functionality: undo last-checkin

[Drew Adams]

> Focusing exclusively on the existing user base

Strawman argument.  No one has suggested doing such a thing.

> means you don't optimize for the new users, and when the older
> generations pass away, Emacs is more likely to die with them.

Existing vs new users is not about old vs young users.
Existing, sometimes organizational, installations of Emacs
are not about old vs young users.  Or even about experienced
vs newbie users.  Plenty of new Emacs users use old versions
that are installed in their organization, and in situations
where they cannot install a newer version.

Old vs young, indeed!  You are playing to the gallery with
such arguments.

Believe it or not, existing, sometimes quite old versions
of Emacs are actually used by many people who do real work.
Including young developers and Emacs newbies.

It's not about "focusing exclusively" on such users.  But
it is about keeping them in mind.  They are, or should be,
one important consideration for Emacs development.

> > Many users use tools, including Emacs that are installed
> > organization-wide (e.g., company-wide).
> 
> If a company mandates the version of Emacs, it could as
> well coordinate it with the VCS the company uses.

So it seems it is not only individual Emacs users whose
"workflows" need to change to fit your development - it
is also company tools and workflows.  Sheesh.

And IIUC, that's already coordinated by Emacs, with its
various `vc-*' functions.  But my reply had nothing to do,
particularly, with the current specific discussion about
`vc-*' commands.

I responded to your _general_ argument expressing your
apparent willingness to sacrifice user workflows, backward
compatibility, and our existing user base - your general
criticism of Eli's prioritizing not breaking backward
compatibility.

You think of such consideration as "one of the most
tedious parts of the Emacs ecosystem."  I don't.  Eli is
right to give importance to backward compatibility, and
it's a shame that this view is so little shared here.
That has not always been the case.

Yes, I suppose it is, to some degree, about your personal
"tedium", as you and your contributions are a valued part
of "the Emacs ecosystem" - we don't want to sacrifice them.
(I am not being facetious at all.)

But that goes only so far.  Your tedium is only one
important consideration, IMHO.  Users count too.  Backward
compatibility is all about users.  It's not about you.
Unfortunately, yes, taking backward compatibility into
account can mean more work for maintainers.  But Emacs
maintainers should have Emacs users foremost in mind.

Not all users care about backward compatibility.  But some
do.  All maintainers should therefore care about backward
compatibility (IMHO).

You like to point out the danger of Emacs stagnating or
slipping into oblivion.  Well IMHO, you need look no
further than this, for a threat to Emacs remaining vibrant
and relevant 20 or 40 years from now: maintainers who think
too much about their own tedium and not enough about Emacs
users.

If you ask me how Emacs has managed to remain healthy and
relevant all these many years, my answer is the dedication
of its maintainers to its users, and in particular the
over-the-top, "abnormal" concern of RMS and Eli (& others)
for such silly, old-fashioned things as documentation and
backward compatibility.  May we get more like them.