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: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 05:35:11 +0300 Message-ID: <83ingijbmo.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83ingkmqed.fsf@gnu.org> <52377n1qhv.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83mv5vktlj.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1505615716 2498 195.159.176.226 (17 Sep 2017 02:35:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 02:35:16 +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 Sun Sep 17 04:35:12 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 1dtPQN-0000Nk-Hu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 04:35:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59160 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dtPQR-0003vi-Kc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Sep 2017 22:35:15 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58871) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dtPQH-0003vK-TR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Sep 2017 22:35:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dtPQE-0001RQ-P7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Sep 2017 22:35:05 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:32891) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dtPQE-0001RL-LG; Sat, 16 Sep 2017 22:35:02 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2901 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1dtPQD-00062s-Sg; Sat, 16 Sep 2017 22:35:02 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Paul Eggert on Sat, 16 Sep 2017 13:20:41 -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:218384 Archived-At: > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Paul Eggert > Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 13:20:41 -0700 > > > This release needed to be 100% safe. Not 99.99%, 100%. > > We would never release anything if we required 100% safety. We just did. > The requirement should be that the release be significantly > better, and that it is worth the cost of making the release. Normally, yes. But not for an emergency release that fixes a security vulnerability: that one must not have any issues or problems, because people will start using it as soon as it is available. > This discussion is really more about we should do with the next > emergency release, not the previous one. If it is bout that, I didn't see it. Seriously discussing what to do next time should not be about the details of what was done this time, because the specific circumstances will certainly be different.