From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eli Zaretskii" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Overlay arrow in *compilation* and *grep* buffers Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 16:28:39 +0300 Message-ID: <01c557bf$Blat.v2.4$d25541e0@zahav.net.il> References: <01c548ba$Blat.v2.4$e4827900@zahav.net.il> <01c54909$Blat.v2.4$070f3e60@zahav.net.il> <01c54c2b$Blat.v2.4$e15e8560@zahav.net.il> <17009.19855.763603.487800@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <01c54c8a$Blat.v2.4$6afa17e0@zahav.net.il> <17009.62951.957607.360268@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <87oebkw22l.fsf@jurta.org> <17027.16429.215672.493633@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <87is1nlnt1.fsf@jurta.org> <01c55782$Blat.v2.4$4616ee00@zahav.net.il> <17028.21709.35999.263715@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1115991215 19033 80.91.229.2 (13 May 2005 13:33:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 13:33:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: juri@jurta.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 13 15:33:32 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DWaHk-0001EJ-FW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 15:33:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DWaQt-0006IY-Qj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 09:42:27 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DWaP8-0004by-Jj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 09:40:38 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DWaP4-0004Xx-HV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 09:40:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DWaP3-0004Q2-2v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 09:40:33 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.66] (helo=romy.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DWaOU-0001qr-Bd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 09:39:58 -0400 Original-Received: from zaretski (IGLD-83-130-254-105.inter.net.il [83.130.254.105]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR) with ESMTP id BFF03346 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 13 May 2005 16:32:37 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: Nick Roberts X-Mailer: emacs 22.0.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 2.4 In-reply-to: <17028.21709.35999.263715@farnswood.snap.net.nz> (message from Nick Roberts on Fri, 13 May 2005 19:18:37 +1200) 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: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:37078 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:37078 > From: Nick Roberts > Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 19:18:37 +1200 > Cc: Juri Linkov , emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > PLEASE do not propose new options until we cut the release branch and > > go into pretest. We will NEVER release another Emacs this way! > > I don't follow this logic. Presumably the only thing that will bring the > pretest forward is completing the items in FOR-RELEASE. Small changes like > this aren't holding it up and may improve the final release. The logic is that any work that is not necessary for finishing the FOR-RELEASE items is wasting time of the core developers, and thus postpones the pretest and the release, because those developers have less time to work on FOR-RELEASE items. If someone doesn't want to work on the manuals or on other FOR-RELEASE items, fine; but at least they should not bring up new features, especially those which affect widely used commands or packages, because such changes tend to provoke long disputes, destabilize Emacs and introduce bugs and misfeatures that drag many other developers into discussions, suggestions for how to fix what became broken, fixing them, debugging the fix for the fix, etc. We've been through this time and again. Some recent examples include the overlay arrow in compilation buffers, font-lock changes wrt comment delimiters, ispell vs aspell invocation, etc. How many more such incidents are needed before people will understand that THERE ARE NO SMALL CHANGES before a release?