From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Stephen.Berman@gmx.net: Re: redisplay] Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:14:12 +0200 Message-ID: <85647ebzgr.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <87mz0z5dux.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <462D059B.7020001@swipnet.se> <87d51u211n.fsf@escher.local.home> <20070424.075017.71197070.mituharu@math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp> <87lkgergy1.fsf@escher.local.home> <85odl7hb3x.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1177884875 31936 80.91.229.12 (29 Apr 2007 22:14:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:14:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: mituharu@math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 30 00:14:33 2007 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 4.50) id 1HiHf7-0000XC-IN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:14:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HiHlE-0001SZ-Fk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:20:52 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HiHlA-0001SP-Ch for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:20:48 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HiHl9-0001S9-P1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:20:47 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HiHl9-0001S6-KN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:20:47 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HiHf2-0008Ao-0l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:14:28 -0400 Original-Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HiHcC-0007Rr-84; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:11:35 -0400 Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id E5D441CCEC9A; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:14:12 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Sun\, 29 Apr 2007 17\:41\:12 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.98 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:70379 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > I see a gross flaw in installing "almost certain improvements" > in a central area of Emacs when we are trying to pin down a > final release. > > The improvement in question consists of at least partly fixing a bug. You don't understand what prerelease testing is about. The goal is not to get a bugfree version of Emacs released. Whoever thinks this possible is lunatic. The goal is to release a version of Emacs which has not introduced severe regressions in a time frame where they could have escaped noticing. Every change, including bug fixes, in particular in general areas, carries with it the danger of introducing _exactly_ those kind of heavy regressions. The ChangeLog files are _full_ of reverted fixes which turned out to do something wrong. If we go on fixing bugs that are not a direct consequence of very recent changes, we will never get to the state where we can be sure not to have release-critical bugs introduced without notice. The bugs you found necessary fixing in the last few weeks are _much_ _much_ more harmless than having to use Emacs 21 instead of Emacs 22. Emacs 22 will _never_ be in a bugfree state before the release. Nor will it become bugfree afterwards. But at least afterwards we can make overall progress. In contrast to the problem of the delayed release, you are playing with toy problems. Problems that will pop up for years and years to come. It is not sane to delay the release because of that: a release is appropriate when there is a definite improvement over the last release without major regressions. This has been the case for years, actually. There is no sense in instead of improvement demanding perfection. People experienced with software releases have told you this time and again. You chose to scorn them for their frustration about you ignoring established procedures and conventional wisdom. Do you really not see what you are doing? For how long are you going to sabotage the attempts of the developers to get Emacs 22.1 released? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum