Subject: Re: bug#23425: master branch: `message' wrongly corrupts ' to curly quote.

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 22:08:51 +0300

> Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 18:04:17 +0000
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> From: Alan Mackenzie <[email-masked]>
> 
> > I don't.  Please let's wait until 25.1 is released, the only way to
> > change this decision is if we see a lot of complaints about this.
> 
> There won't be lots of complaints about this.  There will be a few people
> who notice, and some of them will utterly hate it, just as I do.  Some
> will have their Lisp rendered unworkable, just as happened to me.  There
> are thousands of options in Emacs, and most users care about only a small
> subset (although the subset is different for each user).  You could
> remove any option, no matter how "important", and you'd get only a small
> number of complaints.  This doesn't seem to me like the way to judge
> things.

I see no other way.

> > That some people don't like this.  But we knew that back when it was
> > decided to have this feature.
> 
> And when was this decision taken?  The answer is it wasn't.  Despite the
> great opposition to it, Paul plowed ahead with several varied schemes for
> curly quotes, not waiting for consensus first, and in the end, people
> just got tired of opposing him.
> 
> > > Put frankly, the curly quote stuff was installed into Emacs without there
> > > being any consensus in favour of it, and was deliberately done in such a
> > > way that it could not be disabled (see below).
> 
> > Not true.  If there were no consensus, at least not a wide enough one,
> > this wouldn't have been admitted.
> 
> That's not the way the Emacs project works.  Most contributors work on a
> cooperative basis and first discuss contentious things and abide by
> understandings reached.  You and I certainly do.  That leaves us open to
> abuse by aggressive committers, who don't abide by the above convention.
> This is what happened with curly quotes.  There is nobody in the project
> who feels empowered to revert "premature" commits.

That's not my recollection of how this happened.  But the records are
all there, so anyone can re-read them and make up their own minds.