emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

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


From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: RCS, again: another removed functionality: undo last-checkin
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 20:36:19 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:41.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/41.0

On 10/01/2015 04:07 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

No.  Existing features might make no sense if (a) they didn't make
sense when introduced (it happens!),

You mean features that were useless or broken from the start?

or (b) if the reason for their
existence is no longer valid, like a program that is no longer
available, or operation that is impossible with today's platforms, or
so clearly unused that there's no doubt it could be still useful to
anyone.

...or became irreparably broken over time. That's a pretty high standard to consider a feature for removal.

When I said "doesn't make sense", I meant sense in the context of the VC framework. Which supposedly has some internal logic, ergonomics, etc.

Breaking backward compatibility is about the worst crime package
maintainers could commit, in my opinion.  (I know it's not shared by
many of the others.)

This general opinion (and you're not alone holding it) is one of the most tedious parts of the Emacs ecosystem, IME. It's not that I *love* removing features, but being unable to do that at all makes the burden of a maintainer harder when making changes or adding new features.

It makes veteran users of a package feel like
second-class citizens whose needs and workflows can be disregarded all
too easily.

Removing features is always a tradeoff. While no one wants to make old users sad, if their needs would still be achievable at the cost of workflow changes, we should be able to make that sacrifice.

At some point in the future (distant, in all likelihood, so this is just a rough example), I imagine that would mean sacrificing support for antique VC backends entirely, in favor of simpler VC implementation, or better support of the newer backends. There's nothing stopping the veterans from adopting modern VCSes, you know.



reply via email to

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