Comment 10 for bug 616828

On 8/15/2010 10:29 AM, Tim Cross wrote:

> Yes, that is a good idea. It is a bit 'messy', but would provide a solution
> that doesn't break backwards compatibility.

I agree that it is messy. That is always a problem with legacy stuff.

> I do still think long-term we should consider getting rid of either
> vm-summary-highlight-face or vm-summary-selected as they appear to do the same
> thing. We probably need to make the distinction re: which is releant when clear
> in the manual to help minimise the potential for confusion (if not done
> already).

Yes, at the moment, the VM manual makes a virtue out of using predefined faces.
  We should first rewrite the manual section encouraging people to
define/modify faces and pushing the face variables under the rug. Eventually,
at some point, the face variables would have lost their point and some users
will start complaining that they are messy. We can remove them then.

After 2003 or so, VM has been extremely stable, if not stagnant, and people
have come to depend on that stability. Only after we are able to recruit
enough new users will we be able to address its idiosyncracies.