| I've now read (or at least skimmed) this in it entirety: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=66394 Thierry opened this as a simple bug, but then implemented something with multiple enhancements rather than addressing the bug, while causing UX regressions. It looks like only one developer was engaging the content, a Michael H., and he pointed out early, as far back as in October, both the problems that Eschel later latched onto. Eschel came up with a patch that just addresses #66394 in a small way. The reply to that was: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=66394#201 "But your patch only fixes this bug, reverting half a dozen features mine adds." Using a bug ticket as a vector for introducing enhancements is a software engineering no-no. They should merge the simplest patch that closes the bug without regressing anything or introducing extraneous enhancements. For those, a new enhancement ticket should be opened. If Eschel's patch can close #66394, and not break anything, the consideration of that it doesn't implement another solution's enhancements is actually a plus. There is possibly another bug ticket hiding in there based on the remark [y]ou reintroduced the old implementation which was not wrote correctly about handling various keys, particularly C-g. Existing behavior of not correctly handling various keys sounds like a problem different from the 66394 issue. If the project doesn't want the simplest fix for an issue, but to address something architectural, like with a view for adding enhancements or whatever, that can be turned into another ticket where you articulate that. The original bug can then be marked pending or blocked by that with a note that we don't fix this until that one. |