Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Executive summary:

If you do revert, it might be a good idea to tag the last revision
with this version of Martin's code in it for ease of experimenting.

Juri Linkov writes:

 > > If so, it might be good to revert everything and postphone
 > > these changes to 24.2.
 > 
 > It would be very sad to revert and move development backward.

That's not moving development backward!  You can debate whether it's
appropriate or not, but an explicit decision to revert is moving
*forward*: it removes a technical or social blockage to other
development.

Nor is any code lost.  It may be somewhat complicated to untangle the
changes now, but the new code is all still there in the repository,
and in the future the patch to revert can be applied in reverse again
to get you more or less back where you are now.  And at any time you
want to experiment with this code you can revert your 

I actually agree with your opinion that reversion is inappropriate for
this code, IMNSEO FWIW.  I just hate to see people arguing that code
that's in a project should stay just because it's already in.  That
always has the effect of making it harder to conduct such experiments
in the first place!