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: Issues marked as fixed in 25.2 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 05:31:49 +0200 Message-ID: <83r36dh10a.fsf@gnu.org> References: Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1479180761 1033 195.159.176.226 (15 Nov 2016 03:32:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 03:32:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rgm@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: John Wiegley Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 15 04:32:37 2016 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 1c6UTv-0006PA-4d for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 04:32:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43923 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c6UTy-0003sD-C5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 22:32:26 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42241) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c6UTF-0003s8-Bp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 22:31:42 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c6UTC-0003GV-8y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 22:31:41 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:47739) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c6UTC-0003GP-68; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 22:31:38 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2642 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1c6UTA-0005r0-RE; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 22:31:37 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from John Wiegley on Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:00:47 -0800) 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:209409 Archived-At: > From: John Wiegley > Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:00:47 -0800 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > >>>>> "GM" == Glenn Morris writes: > > GM> I suggest looking at the date the issue was closed and comparing it to the > GM> date the version numbering was changed. But then you also need to check > GM> for issues that have been backported since. And you might also want to > GM> review every such issue to see if it _should_ be backported now. > > Btw, it's exactly this sort of confusion that I wanted to avoid by using a > 3-branch scheme (current release target, next minor, next major). > > The 2-branch scheme we have now makes this sort of confusion a regular part of > ongoing development, because we'll always encounter the case where a fix on > 'master' ends up becoming part of the next release, ahead of whichever version > master was marked as at the time the bug was fixed. I think the confusion will happen no matter which scheme we choose. I think the idea that we can know which version will come from what branch is a fallacy, because the original intent can always be thwarted by later decisions, based on situations no one can predict. I understand the rationale behind trying to record in the bug where it is solved, but I don't think that goal is achievable in practice.