From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Next pretest, and branching plans Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:35:02 -0800 Message-ID: <557EE28DF6994313B6A4990FEBBD387A@us.oracle.com> References: <873a0yhknd.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <136A0B1647B74A53A26506F872BECC6E@us.oracle.com> <83iq9rx0bk.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1266806618 31357 80.91.229.12 (22 Feb 2010 02:43:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 02:43:38 +0000 (UTC) Cc: sdl.web@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 20 20:36:10 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NiuAv-0001xu-8r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 19:35:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37671 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NiuAs-0000id-Bz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 13:35:30 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NiuAm-0000g6-0o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 13:35:24 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=44584 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NiuAk-0000df-OQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 13:35:23 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NiuAh-00039Q-VY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 13:35:22 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet12.oracle.com ([148.87.113.124]:23827) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NiuAh-00039L-PO; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 13:35:19 -0500 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet12.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o1KIZGKt012332 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:35:17 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o1KI8rpt029864; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:35:15 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt004.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 40556091266690901; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:35:01 -0800 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/24.5.179.75) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:35:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <83iq9rx0bk.fsf@gnu.org> Thread-Index: AcqyVVkVk4VZ+jQKTIaKC9NqNMNWXwAALSmA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Source-IP: acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090208.4B802B63.0123:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:121258 Archived-At: > > Perhaps more importantly, there will be fewer (far fewer, > > IMO) new bug reports from Windows users for the latest code. > > > > Instead of a pretest, you will, in effect, just wait until > > after the release to get such bug reports. The purpose > > of the pretest will thus be defeated, except for those > > Windows pretesters who are willing to build Emacs. > > It's not clear what statistics you have to back this up. To back what up? I cited _myself_ as an example. And I have reported a _lot_ of bugs, many of which have been fixed. There will therefore be absolutely fewer (IMO far fewer) bug reports, just counting my own. QED. > I know for a fact that several users of the Windows port > build Emacs themselves; I know that for a fact also. So what? > what percentage that is of the overall number of people who use the > pretest on Windows should be a subject of survey, not guesswork. So go ahead, make such a survey. But check the overall number of Windows pretest _bug reports_ (and the number of such bugs that get fixed, and the number of such bugs that you deem important), not just the number of people who _use_ the Windows pretest. If you limit your check to those who use the Windows pretest, and if no Windows binary is posted, then you've obviously limited your check to those who build Emacs themselves. You will not notice a diminution in _their_ bug reports, obviously. 'Round and 'round you go... [French govt official in the 90s: "Since we stopped listening to the New Caledonian independentists, we no longer hear anything from them."] But even if you do an accurate survey, and you fairly survey the bugs _reported_, not just the number of Windows _users_ of a pretest, and you consider both the number of bug reports and the importance of the bugs reported, a percentage will only give you part of the story. That will indicate a relative loss but not the absolute loss of user feedback. Taking only myself as an example: Even if my bug reports represent a negligible percentage of the total number of Windows bug reports (which I doubt, but which might be the case), they nevertheless represent info that could be useful to Emacs development (that has proven to be the case, in the past). The question is, do you want that info or not? The question still is, "Do you really want bug reports from Windows users?" > FWIW, tools for such a build are readily available, and help for > setting them up is offered here. So I could never understand why > people who want to contribute refuse to install the necessary > development environment. It's not that setting up such a development > environment is hard or needs many hours. There can be many reasons why someone cannot or does not wish to build Emacs. And if building it is so simple, and you have already built the pretest, then why not post your binary of it? Certainly it is at least as easy to post it as to build it, no? What holds you back? "Tools for such a posting are readily available". The purpose of the pretest is only partly to test whether Emacs builds with no problem. And typically you don't need a zillion build reports for the same platform to identify bugs affecting building. You don't need every Emacs pretest tester to build Emacs. The greater purpose of the pretest is to test _Emacs_ itself, after it is built, to see what problems might have been introduced by the latest development changes, 99% of which do not affect building. (No, I don't have statistical evidence for claiming 99%. Sue me.) For that, there is no reason to limit the pretest to those who build Emacs themselves. Especially if you already have a binary available that you can post (which you apparently do have).