Checkout the sources for the release branch

Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

I just noticed that the unpatched binaries I upload says 22.1.50.1. So I 
did a fresh checkout with

   cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.savannah.gnu.org:/sources/emacs co emacs

This is what the page at Savannah

   http://savannah.gnu.org/cvs/?group=emacs

except that I have replaced <modulename> with "emacs".

Could someone please complement the page on Savannah so it is possible 
to understand from it what to do? If that takes time please tell me here 
what to do.

Unfortunately this means for those (very few users) that uses the 
unpatched binaries from my site that they have got the wrong version now 
for some time. I am sorry for this.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Jason Rumney]

Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
> Could someone please complement the page on Savannah so it is possible
> to understand from it what to do? If that takes time please tell me
> here what to do.

If what you want is to compile the pretest, then start with the source
from ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/pretest/emacs-22.0.990.tar.gz

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Jason Rumney wrote:
> Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
>> Could someone please complement the page on Savannah so it is possible
>> to understand from it what to do? If that takes time please tell me
>> here what to do.
> 
> If what you want is to compile the pretest, then start with the source
> from ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/pretest/emacs-22.0.990.tar.gz


That is in a way a good suggestion, but I would prefer to use the setup 
I already have. That uses a checkout from the CVS. I just wonder how to 
do that checkout.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Andreas Schwab]

"Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:

> That is in a way a good suggestion, but I would prefer to use the setup I
> already have. That uses a checkout from the CVS. I just wonder how to do
> that checkout.

Use the EMACS_22_BASE branch.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> That is in a way a good suggestion, but I would prefer to use the setup I
>> already have. That uses a checkout from the CVS. I just wonder how to do
>> that checkout.
> 
> Use the EMACS_22_BASE branch.
> 
> Andreas.

Thanks Andreas, but can you say what that means in terms of the command 
specified on Savannah CVS instructions for Emacs:

   cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.savannah.gnu.org:/sources/emacs co 
<modulename>

Should I replace module name with something including EMACS_22_BASE or?

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Chong Yidong]

"Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:

> Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> That is in a way a good suggestion, but I would prefer to use the setup I
>>> already have. That uses a checkout from the CVS. I just wonder how to do
>>> that checkout.
>>
>> Use the EMACS_22_BASE branch.
>>
>> Andreas.
>
> Thanks Andreas, but can you say what that means in terms of the
> command specified on Savannah CVS instructions for Emacs:
>
>   cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.savannah.gnu.org:/sources/emacs co
> <modulename>
>
> Should I replace module name with something including EMACS_22_BASE or?

  cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.savannah.gnu.org:/sources/emacs
      co -r EMACS_22_BASE emacs

should work.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Chong Yidong wrote:
> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> That is in a way a good suggestion, but I would prefer to use the setup I
>>>> already have. That uses a checkout from the CVS. I just wonder how to do
>>>> that checkout.
>>> Use the EMACS_22_BASE branch.
>>>
>>> Andreas.
>> Thanks Andreas, but can you say what that means in terms of the
>> command specified on Savannah CVS instructions for Emacs:
>>
>>   cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.savannah.gnu.org:/sources/emacs co
>> <modulename>
>>
>> Should I replace module name with something including EMACS_22_BASE or?
> 
>   cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.savannah.gnu.org:/sources/emacs
>       co -r EMACS_22_BASE emacs
> 
> should work.

Thanks. New unpatched binaries for w32 are on the way.

I think it would help if this information was on the Savannah with 
instructions for how to get a CVS copy:

    http://savannah.gnu.org/cvs/?group=emacs

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Jason Rumney]

Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote
> I think it would help if this information was on the Savannah with
> instructions for how to get a CVS copy:
>
>    http://savannah.gnu.org/cvs/?group=emacs
Savannah is not the place to document all the options of the CVS
command. CVS has perfectly adequate documentation that fulfils that role
already.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Jason Rumney wrote:
> Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote
>> I think it would help if this information was on the Savannah with
>> instructions for how to get a CVS copy:
>>
>>    http://savannah.gnu.org/cvs/?group=emacs
> Savannah is not the place to document all the options of the CVS
> command. CVS has perfectly adequate documentation that fulfils that role
> already.

The information about EMACS_22_BASE is specific to Emacs. Where would 
you suggest to put that information?

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Jason Rumney]

Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
> The information about EMACS_22_BASE is specific to Emacs. Where would
> you suggest to put that information?
>
It is probably useful to list the active branches somewhere, but that is
a different matter than handholding users through the exact CVS commands
to use in every circumstance.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Jason Rumney wrote:
> Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
>> The information about EMACS_22_BASE is specific to Emacs. Where would
>> you suggest to put that information?
>>
> It is probably useful to list the active branches somewhere, but that is
> a different matter than handholding users through the exact CVS commands
> to use in every circumstance.

I do not think there is anything wrong with handholding per se as long 
as it does not lead to cluttering of the information.

I think the way that saves most time should be used. And then the normal 
thinking may apply: there are probably many times more readers than 
writers. (And many of them can potentially be helpful with Emacs.)

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[David Kastrup]

"Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:

> Jason Rumney wrote:
>> Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
>>> The information about EMACS_22_BASE is specific to Emacs. Where would
>>> you suggest to put that information?
>>>
>> It is probably useful to list the active branches somewhere, but that is
>> a different matter than handholding users through the exact CVS commands
>> to use in every circumstance.
>
> I do not think there is anything wrong with handholding per se as long
> as it does not lead to cluttering of the information.
>
> I think the way that saves most time should be used. And then the
> normal thinking may apply: there are probably many times more readers
> than writers. (And many of them can potentially be helpful with
> Emacs.)

People who want to be helpful in pretesting should get the pretest
tarballs.  That's what they are for.

People who use CVS can be expected to acquire a minimum of knowledge
for that.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

David Kastrup wrote:
> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Jason Rumney wrote:
>>> Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
>>>> The information about EMACS_22_BASE is specific to Emacs. Where would
>>>> you suggest to put that information?
>>>>
>>> It is probably useful to list the active branches somewhere, but that is
>>> a different matter than handholding users through the exact CVS commands
>>> to use in every circumstance.
>> I do not think there is anything wrong with handholding per se as long
>> as it does not lead to cluttering of the information.
>>
>> I think the way that saves most time should be used. And then the
>> normal thinking may apply: there are probably many times more readers
>> than writers. (And many of them can potentially be helpful with
>> Emacs.)
> 
> People who want to be helpful in pretesting should get the pretest
> tarballs.  That's what they are for.
> 
> People who use CVS can be expected to acquire a minimum of knowledge
> for that.

And how should they get that?

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[David Kastrup]

"Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Jason Rumney wrote:
>>>> Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
>>>>> The information about EMACS_22_BASE is specific to Emacs. Where would
>>>>> you suggest to put that information?
>>>>>
>>>> It is probably useful to list the active branches somewhere, but that is
>>>> a different matter than handholding users through the exact CVS commands
>>>> to use in every circumstance.
>>> I do not think there is anything wrong with handholding per se as long
>>> as it does not lead to cluttering of the information.
>>>
>>> I think the way that saves most time should be used. And then the
>>> normal thinking may apply: there are probably many times more readers
>>> than writers. (And many of them can potentially be helpful with
>>> Emacs.)
>>
>> People who want to be helpful in pretesting should get the pretest
>> tarballs.  That's what they are for.
>>
>> People who use CVS can be expected to acquire a minimum of knowledge
>> for that.
>
> And how should they get that?

Manuals exist.  I see no point whatsoever in starting a tutorial about
CVS branches on the Emacs web page.  And I see little reason to act
surprised that without doing anything, one will continue to update to
trunk instead of EMACS_22_BASE or any other branch.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

David Kastrup wrote:

>>> People who want to be helpful in pretesting should get the pretest
>>> tarballs.  That's what they are for.
>>>
>>> People who use CVS can be expected to acquire a minimum of knowledge
>>> for that.
>> And how should they get that?
> 
> Manuals exist.  I see no point whatsoever in starting a tutorial about
> CVS branches on the Emacs web page.  And I see little reason to act
> surprised that without doing anything, one will continue to update to
> trunk instead of EMACS_22_BASE or any other branch.

I think that you maybe are misunderstanding some things.

- I am uploading the binaries for w32 from the CVS for others to test. I 
do not use the unpatched binaries myself.

- I do not currently want to spend time setting up for doing the same 
thing for the tarballs too.

- There is nothing on the Savanna page mentioning EMACS_22_BASE. I just 
did a fresh checkout and did not get EMACS_22_BASE. I guess that is 
pretty simple to understand (as is nearly everything we can understand 
at all) if one knows CVS. I do not know that.

- If I complain about something I am not doing that because I just want 
to complain. I did find the current situation less useful.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[David Kastrup]

"Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>>>> People who want to be helpful in pretesting should get the pretest
>>>> tarballs.  That's what they are for.
>>>>
>>>> People who use CVS can be expected to acquire a minimum of knowledge
>>>> for that.
>>> And how should they get that?
>>
>> Manuals exist.  I see no point whatsoever in starting a tutorial about
>> CVS branches on the Emacs web page.  And I see little reason to act
>> surprised that without doing anything, one will continue to update to
>> trunk instead of EMACS_22_BASE or any other branch.
>
> I think that you maybe are misunderstanding some things.
>
> - I am uploading the binaries for w32 from the CVS for others to
> test. I do not use the unpatched binaries myself.
>
> - I do not currently want to spend time setting up for doing the same
> thing for the tarballs too.
>
> - There is nothing on the Savanna page mentioning EMACS_22_BASE.

That's why you are supposed to read emacs-devel.

> I just did a fresh checkout and did not get EMACS_22_BASE.

Why should you, when you are not asking for it?

> I guess that is pretty simple to understand (as is nearly everything
> we can understand at all) if one knows CVS. I do not know that.

That's hardly a problem with Emacs or its web pages.  If you have no
clue whatsoever about the tools you are using and expect to magically
have them switch branches, there is no amount of handholding that
could reliably keep you from shooting yourself in your foot.

It is not like the existence of EMACS_22_BASE as a _separate_ branch
from the trunk has been kept a secret on the list.

> - If I complain about something I am not doing that because I just
> want to complain. I did find the current situation less useful.

I don't see any remedy that would address your problem, namely that
you don't understand what you are doing and can't be bothered to read
up on it.

The discussion about the release branch has been going on for months
now.  What do you think people are talking about?

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

David Kastrup wrote:

> That's hardly a problem with Emacs or its web pages.  If you have no
> clue whatsoever about the tools you are using and expect to magically
> have them switch branches, there is no amount of handholding that
> could reliably keep you from shooting yourself in your foot.
> 
> It is not like the existence of EMACS_22_BASE as a _separate_ branch
> from the trunk has been kept a secret on the list.
> 
>> - If I complain about something I am not doing that because I just
>> want to complain. I did find the current situation less useful.
> 
> I don't see any remedy that would address your problem, namely that
> you don't understand what you are doing and can't be bothered to read
> up on it.
> 
> The discussion about the release branch has been going on for months
> now.  What do you think people are talking about?


Maybe you are right, but I think we would move forward better if you 
tried to see things from my point of view.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[David Kastrup]

"Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:

> Maybe you are right, but I think we would move forward better if you
> tried to see things from my point of view.

That is because you refuse to admit any other view or direction, so
the only way to "move forward" is to adapt your views and go your way.

When people are of the opinion that this is the wrong way, there is
little incentive for them to "move forward".

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

David Kastrup wrote:
> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Maybe you are right, but I think we would move forward better if you
>> tried to see things from my point of view.
> 
> That is because you refuse to admit any other view or direction, so
> the only way to "move forward" is to adapt your views and go your way.


I do not want to argue about your conclusion, but this is your (and I 
believe some other peoples) conclusion.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

() "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
() Thu, 24 May 2007 13:24:44 +0200

   Maybe you are right, but I think we would move forward better if you
   tried to see things from my point of view.

your point of view is one of willful ignorance.  to move from willful
(and oftentimes hard-won) non-ignorance to willful ignorance is moving
backwards, since ignorance is everyone's natural start state.

that you ask others move backwards is unlikely to be fruitful if you do
not act to move yourself forwards.  people can wait for the slow but for
the stopped, who has infinite patience?

thi

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> () "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
> () Thu, 24 May 2007 13:24:44 +0200
> 
>    Maybe you are right, but I think we would move forward better if you
>    tried to see things from my point of view.
> 
> your point of view is one of willful ignorance.

There is more to it than that.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:24:44 +0200
> From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
> Cc: Emacs Devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> 
> Maybe you are right, but I think we would move forward better if you 
> tried to see things from my point of view.

You cannot expect others to see things from your point of view, if you
never see things from theirs.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:24:44 +0200
>> From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Emacs Devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
>>
>> Maybe you are right, but I think we would move forward better if you 
>> tried to see things from my point of view.
> 
> You cannot expect others to see things from your point of view, if you
> never see things from theirs.

No of course not.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Jason Rumney]

Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
>>
>> People who use CVS can be expected to acquire a minimum of knowledge
>> for that.
>
> And how should they get that?
By reading the manual which is linked from the same page on Savannah!

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Jason Rumney wrote:
> Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
>>> People who use CVS can be expected to acquire a minimum of knowledge
>>> for that.
>> And how should they get that?
> By reading the manual which is linked from the same page on Savannah!

I meant of course how they should know that EMACS_22_BASE exists. And 
that this is what will be released.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[David Kastrup]

"Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:

> Jason Rumney wrote:
>> Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
>>>> People who use CVS can be expected to acquire a minimum of knowledge
>>>> for that.
>>> And how should they get that?
>> By reading the manual which is linked from the same page on Savannah!
>
> I meant of course how they should know that EMACS_22_BASE exists. And
> that this is what will be released.

It isn't what will be released.  What will be released is what is
_tagged_ as the release, and once it is tagged, there will be a
tarball for it.  If we are in the process of being close to a release,
we also have pretest tarballs.

People who are dealing on a regular base with Emacs' CVS are also told
to read emacs-devel to know what they are dealing with.

And sorry, if you have not noticed by now by the ongoing discussions
on emacs-devel that there is an EMACS_22_BASE branch that is going to
be used for releasing Emacs 22.1, then no amount of additional
handholding is going to help you.

Don't tell me that you are reading the static Emacs CVS instructions
regularly and would have noticed if recently some branch-specific info
would have been put there.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

David Kastrup wrote:
> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Jason Rumney wrote:
>>> Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
>>>>> People who use CVS can be expected to acquire a minimum of knowledge
>>>>> for that.
>>>> And how should they get that?
>>> By reading the manual which is linked from the same page on Savannah!
>> I meant of course how they should know that EMACS_22_BASE exists. And
>> that this is what will be released.
> 
> It isn't what will be released.  What will be released is what is
> _tagged_ as the release, and once it is tagged, there will be a
> tarball for it.  If we are in the process of being close to a release,
> we also have pretest tarballs.

Thanks, but I am not sure I understand the difference.

> People who are dealing on a regular base with Emacs' CVS are also told
> to read emacs-devel to know what they are dealing with.
> 
> And sorry, if you have not noticed by now by the ongoing discussions
> on emacs-devel that there is an EMACS_22_BASE branch that is going to
> be used for releasing Emacs 22.1, then no amount of additional
> handholding is going to help you.

Are you sure you are not writing about your problem, not mine? I found 
nothing interesting from the point of the information matter I asked 
about here.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:48:19 +0200
> From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
> Cc: Emacs Devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>, Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org>
> 
> I found nothing interesting from the point of the information matter
> I asked about here.

It seems that you find interesting only arguments with which you
agree.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:48:19 +0200
>> From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Emacs Devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>, Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org>
>>
>> I found nothing interesting from the point of the information matter
>> I asked about here.
> 
> It seems that you find interesting only arguments with which you
> agree.

Not at all. I found both your and David's comments very interesting, but 
  it did not give me the information I asked for.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:07:47 +0200
> From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
> CC:  dak@gnu.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org,  jasonr@gnu.org
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:48:19 +0200
> >> From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
> >> Cc: Emacs Devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>, Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org>
> >>
> >> I found nothing interesting from the point of the information matter
> >> I asked about here.
> > 
> > It seems that you find interesting only arguments with which you
> > agree.
> 
> Not at all. I found both your and David's comments very interesting, but 
>   it did not give me the information I asked for.

That's funny, because I certainly see in David's comments the
information you asked for.  Maybe you were looking for agreement, not
for information.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> That's funny, because I certainly see in David's comments the
> information you asked for.  Maybe you were looking for agreement, not
> for information.

I think I know what I am asking for. And yes I like agreements.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On 2007-05-24 12:48,
"Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> > It isn't what will be released.  What will be released is
> > what is _tagged_ as the release, and once it is tagged, there
> > will be a tarball for it.  If we are in the process of being
> > close to a release, we also have pretest tarballs.
> 
> Thanks, but I am not sure I understand the difference.

David means that the current state of the source tree in the
`EMACS_22_BASE' branch is not finalized for a release, and there may
very well be several commits *in* the branch before the "head of the
branch" is considered release-quality.

Lennart, I see that elsethread, people have helped you with the -r
option of cvs(1) for checking out from the branch (instead of the main
CVS "HEAD" branch).  If that is not enough, or if you need help with the
`EMACS_22_BASE' branch and the necessary CVS options to make good use of
it, please feel free to ask me.  I've been using CVS extensively for
more than 10 years now, so please consider this an offer for a helping
hand whenever you are intrigued by the way CVS works.

Guys, there's no need for lengthy, flame-like threads.  I'm sure we all
have better ways to spend our time.  Lennart had a question about CVS
usage, we answered it.  I am surprised this thread is still going after
so many days!

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2007-05-24 12:48,
> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>> It isn't what will be released.  What will be released is
>>> what is _tagged_ as the release, and once it is tagged, there
>>> will be a tarball for it.  If we are in the process of being
>>> close to a release, we also have pretest tarballs.
>> Thanks, but I am not sure I understand the difference.
> 
> David means that the current state of the source tree in the
> `EMACS_22_BASE' branch is not finalized for a release, and there may
> very well be several commits *in* the branch before the "head of the
> branch" is considered release-quality.
> 
> Lennart, I see that elsethread, people have helped you with the -r
> option of cvs(1) for checking out from the branch (instead of the main
> CVS "HEAD" branch).  If that is not enough, or if you need help with the
> `EMACS_22_BASE' branch and the necessary CVS options to make good use of
> it, please feel free to ask me.  I've been using CVS extensively for
> more than 10 years now, so please consider this an offer for a helping
> hand whenever you are intrigued by the way CVS works.
> 
> Guys, there's no need for lengthy, flame-like threads.  I'm sure we all
> have better ways to spend our time.  Lennart had a question about CVS
> usage, we answered it.  I am surprised this thread is still going after
> so many days!


Thanks Giorgos. I appreciate your kindness and will remember your offer.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Jason Rumney]

Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
> I meant of course how they should know that EMACS_22_BASE exists. And
> that this is what will be released.

Currently, they would have to read emacs-devel to know this. The pages
on savannah appear to be boilerplate that is the same across projects
(apart from the project name being substituted in several places), so it
may not be possible to put this information on the cvs page on savannah.
But it should go somewhere, perhaps the project description if we can't
change the cvs page.

But this requires someone to volunteer to keep that information up to
date as new branches are created, and old ones are merged back to the
trunk or die off. Currently savannah is just there by default, noone
actively maintains the information about Emacs.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Jason Rumney wrote:
> Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
>> I meant of course how they should know that EMACS_22_BASE exists. And
>> that this is what will be released.
> 
> Currently, they would have to read emacs-devel to know this. The pages
> on savannah appear to be boilerplate that is the same across projects
> (apart from the project name being substituted in several places), so it
> may not be possible to put this information on the cvs page on savannah.
> But it should go somewhere, perhaps the project description if we can't
> change the cvs page.
> 
> But this requires someone to volunteer to keep that information up to
> date as new branches are created, and old ones are merged back to the
> trunk or die off. Currently savannah is just there by default, noone
> actively maintains the information about Emacs.

Ok, I suspected something like that. Thanks for the clarification.

I think some remedy to this would be good.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:35:18 +0200
> From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
> Cc: Emacs Devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> 
> Jason Rumney wrote:
> > Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
> >>> People who use CVS can be expected to acquire a minimum of knowledge
> >>> for that.
> >> And how should they get that?
> > By reading the manual which is linked from the same page on Savannah!
> 
> I meant of course how they should know that EMACS_22_BASE exists.

What's wrong with "cvs log"?

> And that this is what will be released.

Why would they care, if they use the CVS code?  People who care about
what's going to be released should use the pretest tarballs.  If _you_
care about that, I urge you to produce the binaries from the pretest
tarballs, not from CVS branches.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:35:18 +0200
>> From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Emacs Devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
>>
>> Jason Rumney wrote:
>>> Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
>>>>> People who use CVS can be expected to acquire a minimum of knowledge
>>>>> for that.
>>>> And how should they get that?
>>> By reading the manual which is linked from the same page on Savannah!
>> I meant of course how they should know that EMACS_22_BASE exists.
> 
> What's wrong with "cvs log"?

Just that I have no idea where to find the information. I could of 
course read the manual, learn everything about CVS, but for the little 
thing I am asking about it I hoped for cooperation.


>> And that this is what will be released.
> 
> Why would they care, if they use the CVS code?  People who care about
> what's going to be released should use the pretest tarballs.  If _you_
> care about that, I urge you to produce the binaries from the pretest
> tarballs, not from CVS branches.

I have thought about it, but my conclusion is that I should not. I might 
be wrong.

What I believe is that after the release there will be binaries for w32 
avaliable from the ftp site where the tarballs are. Is not that correct? 
Why not make those now then? Or do you mean help is needed with that?

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Jason Rumney]

Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
> What I believe is that after the release there will be binaries for
> w32 avaliable from the ftp site where the tarballs are. Is not that
> correct?

Yes, I have recently updated my GPG key so I can upload to ftp.gnu.org

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Jason Rumney wrote:
> Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
>> What I believe is that after the release there will be binaries for
>> w32 avaliable from the ftp site where the tarballs are. Is not that
>> correct?
> 
> Yes, I have recently updated my GPG key so I can upload to ftp.gnu.org

Perhaps could you also upload from the pretest tarball now?

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Jason Rumney]

Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
> Perhaps could you also upload from the pretest tarball now?

I think we have enough people pretesting on Windows now without needing
to supply pretest binaries.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[David Kastrup]

Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> writes:

> Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
>> Perhaps could you also upload from the pretest tarball now?
>
> I think we have enough people pretesting on Windows now without needing
> to supply pretest binaries.

Supplying pretest binaries would offer some reassurance that the
process of building the binaries will not introduce problems that may
not be apparent on other systems building those by themselves.

It may appear somewhat late in the release process for this, but on
the other hand nobody betting against some particular release date has
yet to lose any money on the wager.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Ralf Angeli]

* David Kastrup (2007-05-24) writes:

> Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
>>> Perhaps could you also upload from the pretest tarball now?
>>
>> I think we have enough people pretesting on Windows now without needing
>> to supply pretest binaries.
>
> Supplying pretest binaries would offer some reassurance that the
> process of building the binaries will not introduce problems that may
> not be apparent on other systems building those by themselves.

The binaries at <URL:ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/auctex/> are built from
pretest tar balls.  The only difference is the addition of AUCTeX which
can be mostly disabled by starting with -no-site-file.

-- 
Ralf

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[David Kastrup]

Ralf Angeli <angeli@caeruleus.net> writes:

> * David Kastrup (2007-05-24) writes:
>
>> Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
>>>> Perhaps could you also upload from the pretest tarball now?
>>>
>>> I think we have enough people pretesting on Windows now without needing
>>> to supply pretest binaries.
>>
>> Supplying pretest binaries would offer some reassurance that the
>> process of building the binaries will not introduce problems that may
>> not be apparent on other systems building those by themselves.
>
> The binaries at <URL:ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/auctex/> are built from
> pretest tar balls.  The only difference is the addition of AUCTeX which
> can be mostly disabled by starting with -no-site-file.

It does not really address my point: I agree with Jason that we
probably have enough people pretesting Windows binaries _built_
_elsewhere_.

The idea was to have people testing Windows binaries built by the same
process and on the same computer that will get used for the final
release.  It would be embarrassing, for example, if we figured out
after the final release of the binaries that _this_ machine had no or
insecure image libraries.

Using the same process _including_ the same machine and installation
for pretest and release makes sure that such things have a chance to
become apparent during the pretest.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Ralf Angeli]

* David Kastrup (2007-05-24) writes:

> It does not really address my point: I agree with Jason that we
> probably have enough people pretesting Windows binaries _built_
> _elsewhere_.

Okay.

> The idea was to have people testing Windows binaries built by the same
> process and on the same computer that will get used for the final
> release.  It would be embarrassing, for example, if we figured out
> after the final release of the binaries that _this_ machine had no or
> insecure image libraries.

The image libraries are a good point, since they will have to be
provided somehow for Windows users.  They could be distributed with the
binary tar ball or people have to be pointed to appropriate download
locations.

-- 
Ralf

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Jason Rumney]

David Kastrup wrote:
> The idea was to have people testing Windows binaries built by the same
> process and on the same computer that will get used for the final
> release.  It would be embarrassing, for example, if we figured out
> after the final release of the binaries that _this_ machine had no or
> insecure image libraries.
>   

The image libraries are irrelevant, as we won't be redistributing them
ourselves.

While I agree in principle with what you are saying, I have only just
started looking at changing the packaging scripts to take into account
the extra functionality we are putting into this release - the lisp
reference, leim as an integral part of Emacs rather than a separate
package, emacsclient, etc - so I cannot upload anything at the moment.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:09:33 +0200
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Supplying pretest binaries would offer some reassurance that the
> process of building the binaries will not introduce problems that may
> not be apparent on other systems building those by themselves.

This is no different from other platforms, including GNU/Linux.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[David Kastrup]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
>> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:09:33 +0200
>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> 
>> Supplying pretest binaries would offer some reassurance that the
>> process of building the binaries will not introduce problems that may
>> not be apparent on other systems building those by themselves.
>
> This is no different from other platforms, including GNU/Linux.

We don't offer binaries for those.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: jasonr@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 15:54:19 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> >> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:09:33 +0200
> >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> >> 
> >> Supplying pretest binaries would offer some reassurance that the
> >> process of building the binaries will not introduce problems that may
> >> not be apparent on other systems building those by themselves.
> >
> > This is no different from other platforms, including GNU/Linux.
> 
> We don't offer binaries for those.

The various GNU/Linux distributions do.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[David Kastrup]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> Cc: jasonr@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
>> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 15:54:19 +0200
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> >> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
>> >> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:09:33 +0200
>> >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> >> 
>> >> Supplying pretest binaries would offer some reassurance that the
>> >> process of building the binaries will not introduce problems that may
>> >> not be apparent on other systems building those by themselves.
>> >
>> > This is no different from other platforms, including GNU/Linux.
>> 
>> We don't offer binaries for those.
>
> The various GNU/Linux distributions do.

How would that be relevant for us?  We need to pretest the things _we_
will put on our servers for the release.  That is the source tarball,
and binaries for Windows.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: jasonr@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 16:23:48 +0200
> 
> >> >> Supplying pretest binaries would offer some reassurance that the
> >> >> process of building the binaries will not introduce problems that may
> >> >> not be apparent on other systems building those by themselves.
> >> >
> >> > This is no different from other platforms, including GNU/Linux.
> >> 
> >> We don't offer binaries for those.
> >
> > The various GNU/Linux distributions do.
> 
> How would that be relevant for us?  We need to pretest the things _we_
> will put on our servers for the release.  That is the source tarball,
> and binaries for Windows.

The Windows binaries are no more produced by ``us'' than the various
GNU/Linux binaries.  The GNU Project distributes only sources, AFAIK.
The fact that GNU lends disk space on its FTP servers for volunteers
to upload Windows binaries does not change anything in principle.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[David Kastrup]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> Cc: jasonr@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
>> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 16:23:48 +0200
>> 
>> >> >> Supplying pretest binaries would offer some reassurance that the
>> >> >> process of building the binaries will not introduce problems that may
>> >> >> not be apparent on other systems building those by themselves.
>> >> >
>> >> > This is no different from other platforms, including GNU/Linux.
>> >> 
>> >> We don't offer binaries for those.
>> >
>> > The various GNU/Linux distributions do.
>> 
>> How would that be relevant for us?  We need to pretest the things _we_
>> will put on our servers for the release.  That is the source tarball,
>> and binaries for Windows.
>
> The Windows binaries are no more produced by ``us'' than the various
> GNU/Linux binaries.

I wrote "put on our servers", not "produced by us".  If you don't feel
like addressing my point, there is little gained by addressing a
different one.

> The GNU Project distributes only sources, AFAIK.  The fact that GNU
> lends disk space on its FTP servers for volunteers to upload Windows
> binaries does not change anything in principle.

It will still be us that get the heat.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 22:38:36 +0200
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, jasonr@gnu.org
> 
> >> How would that be relevant for us?  We need to pretest the things _we_
> >> will put on our servers for the release.  That is the source tarball,
> >> and binaries for Windows.
> >
> > The Windows binaries are no more produced by ``us'' than the various
> > GNU/Linux binaries.
> 
> I wrote "put on our servers", not "produced by us".  If you don't feel
> like addressing my point, there is little gained by addressing a
> different one.

The emphasis on _we_ was yours.  Don't blame me if I pay attention to
your emphasis.

> > The GNU Project distributes only sources, AFAIK.  The fact that GNU
> > lends disk space on its FTP servers for volunteers to upload Windows
> > binaries does not change anything in principle.
> 
> It will still be us that get the heat.

As are things with other GNU/Linux distributions, btw.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:38:06 +0200
> From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> > Yes, I have recently updated my GPG key so I can upload to ftp.gnu.org
> 
> Perhaps could you also upload from the pretest tarball now?

No, ftp.gnu.org is not appropriate for pretest versions.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:16:11 +0200
> From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
> CC:  jasonr@gnu.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> >> I meant of course how they should know that EMACS_22_BASE exists.
> > 
> > What's wrong with "cvs log"?
> 
> Just that I have no idea where to find the information.

You don't need to find it, it will look right at you: "cvs log" lists
all the branches that are known to the repository.  And a name such as
EMACS_22_BASE is sufficiently self-explanatory.

> What I believe is that after the release there will be binaries for w32 
> avaliable from the ftp site where the tarballs are. Is not that correct? 
> Why not make those now then?

All GNU projects put their pretest versions on alpha.gnu.org.
ftp.gnu.org, by contrast, is for released versions, so we should not
put binaries there until Emacs 22.1 is released.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Eli!

On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 04:18:25PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:16:11 +0200
> > From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
> > CC:  jasonr@gnu.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org

> > >> I meant of course how they should know that EMACS_22_BASE exists.

> > > What's wrong with "cvs log"?

> > Just that I have no idea where to find the information.

> You don't need to find it, it will look right at you: "cvs log" lists
> all the branches that are known to the repository.  And a name such as
> EMACS_22_BASE is sufficiently self-explanatory.

I think Lennart meant that he didn't know where to find out that the
command "cvs log" existed, and was relevant; that he hadn't guessed that
there was such a command.

Lennart: you must have CVS installed on your machine, somehow; it will
contain a file cvs.texi (or similar), which you can compile into an info
file and then read on Emacs.  There are MS-Windows versions of gunzip,
tar and makeinfo floating around on the Internet.  Do this - it's well
worth the bother.

> All GNU projects put their pretest versions on alpha.gnu.org.
> ftp.gnu.org, by contrast, is for released versions, so we should not
> put binaries there until Emacs 22.1 is released.

Thanks, I didn't know that!

-- 
Alan.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Hi, Eli!
> 
> On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 04:18:25PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:16:11 +0200
>>> From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
>>> CC:  jasonr@gnu.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
>>>>> I meant of course how they should know that EMACS_22_BASE exists.
> 
>>>> What's wrong with "cvs log"?
> 
>>> Just that I have no idea where to find the information.
> 
>> You don't need to find it, it will look right at you: "cvs log" lists
>> all the branches that are known to the repository.  And a name such as
>> EMACS_22_BASE is sufficiently self-explanatory.

Thanks Eli, I see what you mean now, but I believe it could be made much 
easier for those of us that do not know very much about CVS.

> I think Lennart meant that he didn't know where to find out that the
> command "cvs log" existed, and was relevant; that he hadn't guessed that
> there was such a command.

That is true.

> Lennart: you must have CVS installed on your machine, somehow; it will
> contain a file cvs.texi (or similar), which you can compile into an info
> file and then read on Emacs.  There are MS-Windows versions of gunzip,
> tar and makeinfo floating around on the Internet.  Do this - it's well
> worth the bother.

Thanks Alan. It looks a bit different on MS-Windows. But I can get the 
documentation on the net.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Michael Schierl]

On 24 May 2007 15:31:20 +0200, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

> Lennart: you must have CVS installed on your machine, somehow; it will
> contain a file cvs.texi (or similar), which you can compile into an info
> file and then read on Emacs.  There are MS-Windows versions of gunzip,
> tar and makeinfo floating around on the Internet.  Do this - it's well
> worth the bother.

You might as well look at http://cvsbook.red-bean.com/ where you can 
download a PDF version of the book "Open Source Development with CVS" (and 
a HTML version of an older edition of it).

In my opinion, it is more suited to give an overview how CVS works (and why 
it works like that) than the info manual. On the other hand, the info 
manual is usually better as a reference if you know exactly what you want 
to archieve.

Michael

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> All GNU projects put their pretest versions on alpha.gnu.org.
> ftp.gnu.org, by contrast, is for released versions, so we should not
> put binaries there until Emacs 22.1 is released.

Thanks, I see. But why not put them on alpha.gnu.org?

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 16:06:33 +0200
> From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
> CC:  jasonr@gnu.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > All GNU projects put their pretest versions on alpha.gnu.org.
> > ftp.gnu.org, by contrast, is for released versions, so we should not
> > put binaries there until Emacs 22.1 is released.
> 
> Thanks, I see. But why not put them on alpha.gnu.org?

No reason, except that no one has volunteered to do the job.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch (with proposed new file)

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Lennart!

On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 02:14:36AM +0200, Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
> Jason Rumney wrote:
> >Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
> >>The information about EMACS_22_BASE is specific to Emacs. Where would
> >>you suggest to put that information?

> >It is probably useful to list the active branches somewhere, but that
> >is a different matter than handholding users through the exact CVS
> >commands to use in every circumstance.

> I do not think there is anything wrong with handholding per se as long
> as it does not lead to cluttering of the information.

> I think the way that saves most time should be used. And then the
> normal thinking may apply: there are probably many times more readers
> than writers. (And many of them can potentially be helpful with Emacs.)

I tend to agree with you about hand-holding.  Far too often on technical
forums one sees "RTFM", often written by people who have forgotten how
difficult it is to find the FM, or even the pertinent part of the FM.  I
find this unhelpful and frequently objectionable.  Surely we're supposed
to be helping eachother?

I think a far better approach than "RTFM" is simply to write a one line
answer, as Chong has done.  Even better is to supplement this by
directing the asker to the right page in the right manual.

I believe there should a file in savannah listing our CVS branches, it
should be at the top level, and it should be called
description-of-branches.txt (not some meaningless overlookable name like
"branches.txt").

Here is a prototype of what that file might look like (with
acknowledgement to Kevin Rogers who answered my Usenet post of 2004 which
asked what all the branches were):

#########################################################################

This file summarises the branches which exist in the Emacs CVS repository.
Additionally, there is an arch repository, maintained by Miles Bader.

If you want to check out a particular branch of the Emacs CVS, use a command
like this:

    cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.savannah.gnu.org:/sources/emacs \
        checkoout -r EMACS_22_BASE emacs

.  If you already have the CVS sources on your machine and want to change the
branch they're on, use a command like this (from the top level directory):

    cvs update -r EMACS_22_BASE

.  Full details of these commands are in the CVS manual, page "Accessing
Branches".

Here is a summary of the branches - not all of them are being actively
developed:

o - MAIN (also known as "the trunk"): The trunk is where new features and bug
  fixes are committed.  At some stage in the future, the changes accumulated
  here will be released as Emacs 23.

o - EMACS_22_BASE: this branch is about to be released as Emacs 22.1.
  Currently (2007-05-24), only urgent bug fixes should be committed here - ask
  RMS first.  Any such fixes should also be made in the trunk.

o - multi_tty: For several tty's in a single Emacs instance.

o - lexbind: An Emacs whose Lisp has been enhanced to use lexical binding of
  variables.

o - emacs-bidi: "bi-directional": An Emacs which supports both left-to-right
  and right-to-left languages in a single session.

o - unicode-xft:

o - emacs-unicode-2:
 
o - rmail-mbox-branch:

o - gnus-5_10-branch:
#########################################################################

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Ittersbach, Germany).

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch (with proposed new file)

[Stefan Monnier]

> I believe there should a file in savannah listing our CVS branches, it
> should be at the top level, and it should be called
> description-of-branches.txt (not some meaningless overlookable name like
> "branches.txt").

Problem is: where to place it so that the casual user can find it?
I believe there should be a standard way to do that in savannah, both for
CVS repositories and for Arch repositories (and for any other).


        Stefan

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch (with proposed new file)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Stefan Monnier writes:

 > Problem is: where to place it so that the casual user can find it?
 > I believe there should be a standard way to do that in savannah, both for
 > CVS repositories and for Arch repositories (and for any other).

This isn't right (it's unclean and won't even be visible without
scrolling unless you have a *really* tall page in the browser, and
probably doesn't apply to Arch), but maybe it will give someone an
idea:

How about putting it in README.sticky-tags in the root directory of
the emacs module, where it will be sitting under the "Sticky Tag"
combo box in ViewVC:

    http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/emacs/?root=emacs

Maybe that box could be relabelled "Branches and Sticky Tags", and
some way provided to associate comments with tags in ViewVC.

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch (with proposed new file)

[csant]

On Thu, 24 May 2007 15:14:01 +0200, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:

> o - multi_tty: For several tty's in a single Emacs instance.

	s/multi_tty/multi-tty/
See message from Miles Bader on 2007-05-13.

/c

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch (with proposed new file)

[Miles Bader]

Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
> Here is a summary of the branches - not all of them are being actively
> developed:
> o - multi_tty: For several tty's in a single Emacs instance.

=> multi-tty

> o - gnus-5_10-branch:

Very obsolete.

There are a lot of tags that arguably should just be deleted...

-Miles

-- 
Americans are broad-minded people.  They'll accept the fact that a person can
be an alcoholic, a dope fiend, a wife beater, and even a newspaperman, but if a
man doesn't drive, there is something wrong with him.  -- Art Buchwald

Re: Checkout the sources for the release branch (with proposed new file)

[Jason Rumney]

Miles Bader wrote:
> There are a lot of tags that arguably should just be deleted...
>   

Deleting branch tags makes the branch almost impossible to reach (single
files can be referenced by revision number, but for more than a handful
of files this is too much effort). It would be better just to document
somewhere which branches are active, and which have recently become
inactive and why (merged, released, abandoned...).