Re: display-buffer-alist simplifications

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Eli Zaretskii writes:

Now you are the one being disrespectful.  I've been release manager
and the closest thing XEmacs has to a head maintainer for a decade.
Of course I understand the issues you're talking about.  Everything
you mention is a good reason for being reluctant to consider, and even
more reluctant to execute, a reversion of a feature.  I did not and do
not deny that.  Nevertheless, the possibility remains.

 > > Anyway, the word "experiment" is appropriate until you propose a more
 > > accurate one that takes into account both the maintainers' approval
 > > and the uncertainty of success.
 > 
 > The point is that certainty of success should be quite high as a
 > prerequisite for approving such significant features for a merge.

Certainty is not "high" or nor even "quite high".  Certainty is an
absolute, no differences from expectation allowed.  If you are not
certain of the outcome of an action, then ... what do you call that
action?