Re: line-move-visual

[Uday S Reddy]

On 6/12/2010 9:30 AM, David Kastrup wrote:

> It would mean mechanically routing the developer list here.  That's
> nonsensical.  Anybody really wanting this sort of mixup can tell his
> newsreader to create a virtual group that does it.

No, not really.

The discussion that needs to be routed here is about potential changes to the 
user's manual.  How those changes are *implemented* can continue to stay on the 
developer list.  Evans suggested "RFC" which I think is a great term for these 
kinds of things.

Ideas that add bits to the user's manual can also be brought here, perhaps 
selectively.  For instance, there is a discussion going on there right now 
about how to deliver "bidirectional text" editing, for buffers that intermix 
English and Arabic, say.  There are lots of tricky issues there about key 
bindings and functionality.  The discussion is impoverished by the dearth of 
people that actually do bidirectional editing.  I don't see why that discussion 
could not be brought here, where there is some chance of running into people 
that might actually do bidirectional editing and who might provide valuable input.

In any organization, virtual or real, there are decisions that should be taken 
by small groups of people and there are decisions that can benefit from broad 
participation.  The organizations that can't figure out the difference usually 
decline over time.

Cheers,
Uday