From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Cook, Malcolm" Subject: Re: [POLL] Should Org tempo be enabled by default? (expand templates thru e.g. " References: <87wowoh1m9.fsf@aquinas.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <871sevime2.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58603) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fDYYU-0008Pa-Kz for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 01 May 2018 12:55:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fDYYS-0004TO-V7 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 01 May 2018 12:55:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <871sevime2.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: Nicolas Goaziou , Steve Downey Cc: Bastien , Tim Cross , Org-mode , Jon Snader Thanks for the re-cap. =20 I'm changing my vote. Make the change! Change the default! And make lots of noise advertising i= t (make more prominent https://orgmode.org/Changes.html , etc). Someone suggested going to v10.x Is there a case for this? Thx of org! > -----Original Message----- > From: Emacs-orgmode bounces+mec=3Dstowers.org@gnu.org> On Behalf Of Nicolas Goaziou > Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2018 7:36 AM > To: Steve Downey > Cc: Bastien ; Tim Cross ; Org- > mode ; Jon Snader > Subject: Re: [O] [POLL] Should Org tempo be enabled by default? (expand > templates thru e.g. "=20 > Hello, >=20 > Steve Downey writes: >=20 > > Asking users to accept any breakage in the tool they use to get work d= one > > is a lot. Changes in UI in emacs are opt-in. > > > > Even if the change is the right thing to do. >=20 > I think some of you (basically, anyone thinking we should enable " TAB" by default ;)) are missing the point. >=20 >=20 > The first important thing to understand is that, even if we enable > `org-tempo' by default, next Org release /will break/ for some of us. >=20 > - It will break because `org-tempo' is only 99% backward-compatible. So > anyone having customizing templates is bound to change them. >=20 > - It will break because there are 9 other incompatible changes between > 9.1 and 9.2. >=20 > So, asking to load `org-tempo' by default just to avoid breaking users > set-up is a wrong argument. It will only "protect" those among us that > use " incompatible changes. IOW, updating Org from 9.1 to 9.2 will not be > smooth for everyone. No matter what `org-tempo' becomes. >=20 >=20 > The second important point is there is a general design issue at stake. > Sorry, there is no pleasure in inflicting "torture" (as I read in this > thread) to users. >=20 > Org is too big. Its (lack of) design is wrong. >=20 > This is not from me, but from some the Emacs developers, in particular > Richard Stallman. You may want to read the thread "Differences between > Org-Mode and Hyperbole" in emacs-devel mailing list archives for the > exact quote. >=20 > Org has to be big, because it is featureful. Yet, we cannot ignore the > remark. Also, that doesn't mean we cannot do anything to improve the > situation. Actually, there are, at least, two areas in which we can make > progress: >=20 > 1. externalize Org features that apply to other major modes, or drop > them if there are equivalents to them, >=20 > 2. re-using (external) Emacs facilities for Org mode features that are > not central for us. >=20 > Not so long ago, we provided footnotes for other modes, even though > "footnote.el" had been there for a long time. This clearly felt into > (1), so we dropped the feature. Recently, I wrote "orgalist.el", which > ports Org plain lists into other modes. I moved it out of Org core > because of (1). It is now available in GNU ELPA. >=20 > Expansion templates are a great thing, but this is only sugar for Org, > which is totally usable without them. Besides, some facilities are > providing it for us. This falls into (2). By design, I'm convinced we > should not include them. I also wish that anyone involved in this thread > can take a step back to see the whole picture. >=20 > The question is not about you using " 'org-tempo) could solve this. The question is not about breaking other > configurations: there always have been breakage and there will be again. > The question is about designing Org so it fits well -- better, at > least -- in the Emacs ecosystem. This means no unreasonable feature > overlap and enough modularity to be re-usable from other parts in Emacs. >=20 >=20 > Back to the current poll. It would be more efficient to think about > solutions to make the update less painful. In particular, how can we > tell users updating from ELPA about the necessary changes involved. >=20 > I remember that Magit experimented displaying a message the first time > you used a new release; you would silence it only by setting a variable. > I don't think this is the case anymore, so it may have failed, though. > We could also make the page more > prominent in the summary displayed along with the package. >=20 >=20 > Now back to the poll. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > -- > Nicolas Goaziou >=20 > P.S: Bastien, would you please stop lobbying in every other > communication canal out there, that's not fair ;)