Stefan Nobis <stefan...@snobis.de> writes: > "Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide" <arne_...@web.de> writes: > >> Sad story short:... > > I'm with you - last weekend I upgrade my OS and had quite some trouble > to get everything working again and still have some nasty hoops to > jump through. > > But on the other side: What are we talking about? > > Org had a given default configuration for quite some time. To be > clear: THIS DID NOT CHANGE! > > But some people are upset now. Why? Because the emergent behaviour > changed. Not the underlying default configuration, but in the context > and details of how each individual uses Org for some users the default > configuration was emergent and evident, but some other users did not > perceive this default configuration. > > Now a simple setting, syncing Org with the defaults of Emacs and other > modes with respect to RET and electric-indent-mode, make the OLD, > UNCHANGED default configuration emergent for almost all users. > > These are very subtle effects inside a very complex environment. > > How should maintainers be able to foresee all possible environments > and use cases and the resulting emergent behaviour? > > I'm really surprised that such a simple and insignificant breaking > change results in such a uproar. If a new Org version make all old > files completely unusable or a bunch of important features is totally > broken, say nothing of babel works anymore - yes, is such a case I > would understand the uproar. > > But ranting so loudly and insistent and continuously over such a minor > details is really beyond me. > > And nobody has to read all NEWS and Changelogs for every single peace > of software they are using. If nothing breaks maybe there is nothing > to worry about. If some minor detail like the new emergent indentation > behaviour annoys you - just have a quick look in the NEWS file of the > new version. Is this really that hard? > > On the other hand: What's the alternative? Never change anything > again? Maybe some users rely on the emergent behaviour of some bad > bug (that has bad consequences for some other users). Should it never > be changed, because it may annoy some users and they could be forced > to read the NEWS file? > > You cannot have the cookie and eat it! > > So, everyone, please calm down and try not to overreact over really > simple, negligible details.
To quote Randall Munroe: "Every change breaks someone's workflow"[1] Footnotes: [1] https://xkcd.com/1172/ -- This signature is currently under construction.