From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFtCVUddIGBvcmctbG9hZC1ub2Vycm9yLW11c3RzdWZmaXg=?= =?UTF-8?B?wrQgaXMgbm90IGRlZmluZWQsIGludHJvZHVjZWQgYnkgNTQ4NGEzM2I=?= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 17:06:08 +0100 Message-ID: <87bocucrnz.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <87a9sh3tsp.fsf@gmail.com> <87hamprlob.fsf@gmail.com> <11306.1357839845@alphaville> <874niosy6w.fsf@gmail.com> <87txqodgix.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87txqovnv3.fsf@gmail.com> <874niodcry.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87vcb4spxe.fsf@gmail.com> <8738y8n0b2.fsf@gmail.com> <87lic0bpwj.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87hamo7gdk.fsf@gmail.com> <87wqvk9p5f.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87ehhrhpjl.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87sj67d662.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87a9sf1wsl.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87k3rjd51k.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87obgvzlah.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87fw27cybb.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <876232mzmz.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <878v7y8qwx.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87a9seh050.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35420) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tu3b3-0004FI-1h for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 11:06:16 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tu3b1-0001xA-0z for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 11:06:12 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]:51820) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tu3b0-0001x0-RN for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 11:06:10 -0500 Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id o1so429664wic.17 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 08:06:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87a9seh050.fsf@Rainer.invalid> (Achim Gratz's message of "Sat, 12 Jan 2013 16:49:31 +0100") 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-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Achim Gratz Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org > No, not at all. That's what reverting db7ece9fa2 does. And if you > really want to flip off folks with strange Org installations instead of > helping them survive, then leave out that third "t", i.e. just change > that line to: Please lower your tone. I'm not "flipping off" anybody. > In other words something like this: > > (require 'org-compat) > (require 'org-macs) > (add-to-list 'load-path "/home/org-mode/lisp") > (require 'org) Anybody can see this is wrong, and instead of letting users shoot themselves in the foot with a wrong setup, we should educate them to use a correct one like (add-to-list 'load-path "/home/org-mode/lisp") (require 'org) which shouldn't be that hard. > will result in a correctly loaded Org with the patch, but yield either a > not-correctly working Org (silently wrong and producing strange results > that nobody can reproduce) or a failure to load Org at all (you get an > error at least) without it. I'm fine with not fixing this right now. > It is also an experiment to determine if Emacs should do something like > this (by default or as an option) and how to best implement it. Even if > it eventually moved into Emacs however, Org would still have to > implement it as a workaround for older Emacsen that don't have it. Again, I'm fine with any experiment that can be done on Emacs side so that Emacs autoloads are always correct. But I won't allow a patch that advise `require' in Org for now. Thanks, -- Bastien