From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs-29 e2ac0d416b9 1/5: ; Merge from origin/emacs-28 Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 19:18:03 +0200 Message-ID: <83y1ostfw4.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83h6vhwpop.fsf@gnu.org> <83fsb1wmeh.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="16825"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Kangas Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 20 18:18:50 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pU9oQ-000493-Gu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 18:18:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pU9nn-0002V9-B9; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 12:18:11 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pU9nm-0002TF-04 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 12:18:10 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pU9nl-0005RH-NE; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 12:18:09 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=y3NUImRtlD8BD7gZSmtzFTS48UoqjRMQZNW2dcr3LbA=; b=ppNn3pDkmVti 1vT1MQ8CKOVD9kycNSVQVCObyrgONNgOYHivIp0cnEOnb2y4KncSKo6S0SBe3qoCsmC79QBBYs0Xm xWdU2whQ9uSpzi+ug2PLFn+eTrNsNVWB4h9top/QxPYuvLbAyx2r4B+mkPS3c9jMxkaf5wEzuwGzg szhuA4G+IECWtsPlsKI1yyK+EJWNpOOdzvfgC15zeU5bD0tVvSuC3tTD64WmkjhQ2serQWJMxcFa8 JuuXwuwOiQi9C3hktOZkTjvk+NXjTdWV/f+7e5gHDBfbTY2pN5AiUeHdR70b3ABsMssBQzgol18kT ajccdHPyw4VW+lCfyZwe+A==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pU9nW-0005be-Q4; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 12:18:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Kangas on Mon, 20 Feb 2023 08:50:10 -0800) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:303617 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Kangas > Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 08:50:10 -0800 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> git diff 068b53500e24b7b..ad6c6a3a11569c4 > > > > Why would we need to eyeball all those changes now? It's a wasted > > effort. We never merge to the release branch, never. > > I already eyeballed all of those changes You could miss something or make a mistake, couldn't you? It's possible. > $ git diff -b --stat 068b53500e24b7b..ad6c6a3a11569c4 > ChangeLog.3 | 430 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > etc/AUTHORS | 24 +-- > etc/HISTORY | 2 + > 3 files changed, 443 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) That's not what I saw. I saw many more changes brought be the merge. And again, the changes to AUTHORS and ChangeLog.3 are not needed on the emacs-29 branch, since those files are generated as part of preparing the release. > You left out the part of my message where I explained this, but a merge > preserves history and tags. We don't need to preserve history on the emacs-29 branch. The history and tags are preserved by the master branch, and when we cut a release branch, it inherits that. But merging an old release branch to a newer release branch is pointless, as it doesn't preserve anything. An old release branch is a dead end, and any changes on it are not interesting, since they are at best no-ops. > > It is simply unnecessary risk, and something we never do, for very > > good reasons. I'd sleep better if you'd reverted those changes on > > emacs-29, and made the single change in HISTORY by hand. > > The risk is minimal Famous last words. Why should we have _any_ risk at all? There's no gain here, absolutely none! Risk with no gain makes no sense...