GNU bug report logs - #23426
25.0.93; dired-do-find-regexp doesn't find newline

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 23426 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, dgutov <at> yandex.ru
Subject: bug#23426: 25.0.93; dired-do-find-regexp doesn't find newline
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 09:32:45 -0700 (PDT)

> Maintaining too many alternative UIs is a maintenance burden we cannot
> afford.

Even if you left the existing `A' and `Q' code dormant, there
would likely be little noticeable problem.  At least for a few
years, while letting users experiment with the new.

Seriously, how much change has been needed recently for the
existing `A' and `Q' code?  Code which you are anyway not
removing immediately.

The question I raised is only about the key bindings.

> > I don't claim ill will - never have.
> 
> May I suggest that you ask someone impartial to read all your posts,
> and provide feedback?  You might be surprised to learn how your
> messages read.

Ditto.  Can you show where I claimed ill will on anyone's part
in making this change?  I'm sure the intentions were good ones.
That doesn't mean that the result is the best of all worlds.

As I said earlier, if the key bindings had not been taken over,
I would likely have said nothing at all about this new feature.
Except possibly (once I've played with it) "thank you" for it.

It's a minor complaint: Please leave the existing key bindings.

> > What's the imperative behind this key-binding replacement?
> > Why not just offer the new feature as a plus, not a
> > plus-and-minus?
> 
> See above.

The maintenance burden of the existing `A' and `Q' code?
You're not removing it immediately anyway.  Why the need to
take over those keys immediately?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.