Re: Editor Priorities

[Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org>]

This whole thing has turned into an abuse of the alternatives 
system, I'm pretty sure.

	Alternatives do not handle and should not handle political wars
	over vi and emacs.

	Alternatives do not handle and should not handle political wars
	over i18n.

	Alternative priorities do not handle and should not handle my
	personal preferences.[0]

And, this discussion has lead me to believe that,

	Assigning editor priorities on a supposedly objective check list
	is a very bad idea and will not, in practice, work.

We should take the goal, which I think there is a consensus for:

	The default editor should be one that a person, having never
	touched it or any other related editor before, and having
	little familiarity with the system, can manage to edit config
	files.

We can define some lose guidelines, based on the above, for what 
priority to give an editor. nano scores pretty high. Vi and 
emacs score pretty low. We can give those editors numbers and 
then proceed from there filling in all other editors.

[0] This would be a neat idea for a new package, though.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org