From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eli Zaretskii" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [jerome.marant@free.fr: Re: Possible help with stable Emacs releases.] Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:48:01 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <01c4a705$Blat.v2.2.2$0342c8c0@zahav.net.il> References: <1096291271.415813c757a26@imp6-q.free.fr> <20040927134714.GA20012@fencepost> <87hdphx91c.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <87655wswkv.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <01c4a6f8$Blat.v2.2.2$f6ef61c0@zahav.net.il> <87ekkjiy9x.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1096559699 28102 80.91.229.6 (30 Sep 2004 15:54:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:54:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jmarant@free.fr, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 30 17:54:48 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CD3GZ-0005js-00 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:54:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CD3Mu-00041N-Ky for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:01:20 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CD3Je-0003Sh-85 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:57:58 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CD3Jc-0003S5-PC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:57:57 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CD3Jc-0003Ry-Fk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:57:56 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.24] (helo=legolas.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CD3Ct-0005nQ-Oa for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:51:00 -0400 Original-Received: from zaretski ([80.230.152.240]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.3-GR) with ESMTP id CSL31596 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:50:45 +0200 (IST) Original-To: Rob Browning X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 2.2.2 In-reply-to: <87ekkjiy9x.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> (message from Rob Browning on Thu, 30 Sep 2004 10:15:06 -0500) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:27719 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:27719 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, jmarant@free.fr > From: Rob Browning > Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 10:15:06 -0500 > > So the presumption was that there won't be more than about 50 bugfixes > before the next "primary release". Yes. In my experience, most pretest versions started from .80, with some major ones beginning at .70. > To a large extent how many bugfix releases we could make in a year or > so will depend on how the developers want to handle the "bugfix only" > testing process. Will it be the same process as for a "bigger" > release, or can it be handled differently since the changes allowed > are much more restricted? I don't think it matters: in any case, it takes a non-trivial amount of time to run a pretest. One related problem is that AFAIK we have no clear criteria for when a version, be it bugfix or major, is ready for a release. > (In Debian, we normally release a new package as soon as we have a > fix, it goes to unstable, and then it waits there for a time. If > "nothing goes wrong" with it or anything it depends on during that > time, then that package migrates to testing for eventual inclusion in > our next stable release.) I think Emacs is such a large package that it doesn't make sense to have a new version more than once in a month or two. But that, too, was never discussed nor codified since we never could end a pretest as soon as that. Perhaps we should delay this discussion until we get to such a situation for the first time.