[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Confused by y-or-n-p

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Confused by y-or-n-p
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 16:27:01 +0200

> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> Cc: ghe@sdf.org, rudalics@gmx.at, juri@linkov.net,
>       monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 02:52:59 -0500
>   > The proposed rule is very different: it says that if the announcement
>   > and the discussion didn't happen, the change cannot go in.
> That's not a big deal.  Make the announcement, have the discussion,
> and then the change can go in -- perhaps with the addition of a user
> option to enable the change.

We do all that already, just without the red tape.

It is a big deal for me to add any unnecessary red tape, because it
makes my already hard job significantly harder.

> Since adding the user option variable is meant to be a general
> solution, we may as well say that there's no need for the announcement
> or the discussion if there is aleady a user option variable to enable
> the change, and it is disabled by default.

There we go: the slippery slope of having exceptions to the rule is
already starting.  We will be adding more and more exceptions, and
then we will be endlessly discussing whether a given exception can or
cannot be applied to a particular case.  To what end?

reply via email to

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