Re: Reverting but keeping undo

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 29.05.2013 9:13, Drew Adams wrote:
> > I think it's a great change.
> Yes, why?  Any good reason?

The obvious one: prevention of data loss. With `auto-revert-mode', for 
example.

> (Sure, users can add back code themselves to empty the undo list and get back 
> the former behavior...)

Indeed, they can. The reverse has been impossible, until now.

> There might well be someone out there who, "personally" or not (?), has 
> (another) good argument for keeping things the way they were - at least as an option.  
> Who knows?  As Richard often says (especially for changes to basic, longstanding 
> behavior), why not poll the users?

They should be able to speak up now, or during the pretest. Nothing is 
really set in stone, when it comes to code.

> Don't you wonder that this came up now seemingly for the first time?  Do you 
> think that no one has thought before about whether the undo list should be kept 
> or dropped when reverting?  A bit presumptuous, no?

Obviously not. The opened bug is a couple of years old now.

> Think about it a bit more.  Open it for discussion on emacs-devel.  Why act so 
> precipitously?  Is that "personally" necessary?

We're having this discussion now, and instead of giving actual reasons 
you're speaking of hypothetical users.

Talking about personal needs and requirements is good, because every 
person is usually competent about those.

But the way you often assume the you know the userbase better than 
everyone else is tiresome, to be honest.