Better mechanism to choose the default editor (and avoid vi if possible)?

[Tony Mechelynck]

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 2:57 AM Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab at web.de> wrote:
>
>
> Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es> writes:
>
> >>>> "MK" == Marcin Kasperski <Marcin.Kasperski at mekk.waw.pl> writes:
> >
> >    >> If Mercurial would work harder to find some editor, this could be
> >    >> reduced to the tiny fraction of people who have neither nano, nor vi,
> >    >> nor emacs, no notepad, nor … installed.
> >
> >
> >    > 2. $EDITOR=emacs
> >
> >    >    Well, I love emacs but with my convoluted config it starts 20s
> >    >    on my laptop.
> >
> > Yep for me too.
>
> I typically use either emacs -Q or nano.
>
> Both are fast.
>
> But anyway: this is no counter-argument: It just gives some hint on the
> right ordering.

I'm not sure there is a rght ordering, unless you assume that if
neither ui.editor nor $EDITOR is set, then we probably are in front of
a very green beginner, who needs something extremely simple like kedit
or Notepad. You prefer Emacs, I prefer Vim, but let's not reheat the
Great Editor War: I think both are out for the greenest of newbies and
that's that. Once Mercurial has (or will have) failed once and told us
to set the default, you set emacs, I set vim, and now we're both
happy.
>
> Best wishes,
> Arne

Best regards,
Tony.
> --
> Unpolitisch sein
> heißt politisch sein
> ohne es zu merken
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at mercurial-scm.org
> https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial