RE: binding ibuffer to C-x C-b by default

[Drew Adams]

> The most recent time seems to be March 2008, where you [Dan] asked
> the maintainers for suggestions on the following defaults:
> 
> "Here are some examples of changes that could be made:
> - transient-mark, selection with Shift-arrow keys
> - show-paren-mode on by default
> - iswitchb-mode on by default
> - bind ibuffer to C-x C-b
> - hide-ifdef-mode on by default for C/C++/objc
> - flyspell-mode on by default for text-mode"
> 
> Concerning ibuffer Stefan answered:
> "I added many months ago the following entry in etc/TODO
> ** Merge ibuffer.el and buff-menu.el.
>    More specifically do what's needed to make ibuffer.el the default,
>    or just an extension of buff-menu.el."
> 
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2008-03/msg00405.html
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2008-03/msg00450.html
> 
> Similar exchanges also came up in 2003, 2006 and 2007. Stefan 2003:
> "Hadn't it been decided to make Ibuffer the default (i.e. replacing
> list-buffers) ?  Did I dream it ? Also I see that list-buffers uses
> the header-line whereas Ibuffer doesn't. "
> 
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2003-03/msg00200.html

Thanks for the URLs, Rene.

FWIW, bad old Drew, who supposedly "complained so _endlessly_ (and
_voluminously_) the last time" contributed in fact 0 posts the last time (Miles:
1), and only 3 short posts the previous time (Miles: 3 also).  (That's
subracting posts in that thread that had nothing to do with the C-x C-b question
- counting all posts: Drew 10, Miles 18. ;-))

For the record, here is all that Verbose Old Drew said previously on the topic.
It previews the ultimate outcome of the discussion, BTW, which was essentially
that ibuffer and buffer menu should probably be merged (still my position):

D> I don't agree that ibuffer subsumes list-buffers, and I don't
D> want ibuffer to replace list-buffers as the binding of C-x C-b.
D>
D> I would prefer that we discuss some of the features that you or
D> others like from ibuffer, and we then adapt list-buffers to
D> include those features that we agree on.  list-buffers has a better
D> UI, IMO. If we want some of the ibuffer features, then list-buffers
D> is the place to add them.  I'm not against merging the two, keeping
D> the best of each.

But there was subsequently _no_ such discussion of the features that people
might like from ibuffer and how to add them to the buffer menu. Zero. Nada.

And to Stefan's TODO post cited above, I replied:

D> FWIW, I'm OK with the last part, "just an extention of
D> buff-menu.el", assuming that buff-menu.el features are
D> not lost in the process.

We are today exactly where we were previously.  I still believe that the buffer
menu is a better UI overall but that ibuffer has useful features which could be
added to the buffer menu.  I think that some if not most of those features are
simply commands that could easily be added - but I'm no expert on ibuffer.

Why doesn't someone who is familiar with ibuffer (Miles?) try adding some of the
more useful commands to buff-menu.el, as a start?

Ideally (deja vu), we would _discuss_ those features first and decide which
should be added, but I'm OK with someone directly adding ibuffer features to
buff-menu.el, as long as nothing gets taken away.  If a potential addition does
present a conflict then we should discuss it before making a change.