From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Why wasn't the 25.3 release based on the then-head of the emacs-25 branch? Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 20:48:26 +0300 Message-ID: <83bmm7j3th.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83ingkmqed.fsf@gnu.org> <52377n1qhv.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83mv5vktlj.fsf@gnu.org> <83ingijbmo.fsf@gnu.org> <18aea83f-80ea-756e-106a-1d27eb5fc38e@cs.ucla.edu> <83fubljtiq.fsf@gnu.org> <80bc870f-4ce0-bf34-a9ae-4cc50c796266@cs.ucla.edu> <83y3pdi21z.fsf@gnu.org> <83k20whwsd.fsf@gnu.org> <2c3dbffa-b56c-ec31-2fa9-0ca6dc757cd2@cs.ucla.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1505756975 17615 195.159.176.226 (18 Sep 2017 17:49:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:49:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rgm@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Sep 18 19:49:28 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1du0Ah-0004EA-CI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 19:49:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38064 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1du0Ao-0004hm-S8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:49:34 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48861) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1du0A3-0004hd-2O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:48:48 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1du0A0-00060M-0P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:48:47 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:48120) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1du09z-00060G-T3; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:48:43 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4693 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1du09y-0007KY-GA; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:48:43 -0400 In-reply-to: <2c3dbffa-b56c-ec31-2fa9-0ca6dc757cd2@cs.ucla.edu> (message from Paul Eggert on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:10:21 -0700) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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 Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:218480 Archived-At: > Cc: rgm@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Paul Eggert > Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:10:21 -0700 > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > it's naïve to assume > > time frames of minutes for these activities, unless we want to give up > > QA. > > It's routine to do the kind of QA that you mention in minutes for projects > Emacs's size. We're not up to that now, but it's reasonable to make it a goal, > if this sort of thing is important to us. With the right organization and equipment available at suitable SLA, sure. But we are very far from that point, IMO. > At any rate the procedure could be streamlined considerably compared > to what it was last time. Indeed, working in that direction would be a good progress. I don't think we need to get the time down to minutes, though, as that would probably require measures that are impractical in our conditions. > We could try having a better relationship with Debian and one or two others, so > that the patches they consider to be security issues cause us to consider > issuing new versions quickly. And we could be more proactive in sending our > potential security patches to them early in our review process. If someone could take that upon themselves, sure. > > Are Debian and Fedora indeed enough? What about Red Hat? > > Fedora is Red Hat's early version, so we needn't worry about Red Hat separately. > > > What about Arch Linux? > > They wouldn't make my cut. Others of us might step up to be a liaison. openSUSE > is also a plausible candidate for that. What do others think about the set of distros we should use? > > given the sample of distributions, how does one > > figure out which ones of them include a given Emacs changeset, in > > which versions of Emacs, and since what time. > > This info is all public now, at least for Debian and Red Hat. OK, so it would be good to have the pointers in admin/ somewhere. Thanks.