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 29.3 released Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 14:42:26 +0200 Message-ID: <86frwbj171.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86edbzyavw.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0fzsbxz.fsf@gmx.de> <86wmprjumv.fsf@gnu.org> <875xxbtmpp.fsf@gmx.de> <86r0fzjs9x.fsf@gnu.org> <87il199y5d.fsf@gmx.de> <865xx9jh3y.fsf@gnu.org> <875xx9f4ol.fsf@gmx.de> <86o7b0iy5i.fsf@gnu.org> <87edbwdqpv.fsf@gmx.de> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="26774"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Michael Albinus Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 27 13:43:11 2024 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 1rpScY-0006p4-ME for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 13:43:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rpSby-0003jx-Iz; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:42:34 -0400 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 1rpSbv-0003jj-Pm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:42:31 -0400 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 1rpSbv-0002dK-Ae; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:42:31 -0400 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=lbEgiqss3tjYm0B0wT34Nin7ZdJ3k1Ik+98rGLyUTSA=; b=PgIpbtwRmV0u 6z/dpbNueJW4r5KOU0fZsA7aq5ojOoRUe2tADBVEUIYgUquiceN1iLtPjchFlZkNjvJ3rGuchoZCd qB1iCo4uOUHsN/i0gMO+T2s36FF7zo7guW3sZENAWep8uqKccR3lzDdDBB70iyNezTv3Jm2laldJP CFzJZ+67lVB5IFOYzHFeh3DzL9lji+8IjsPSC5WdtU+TnSqpSwjBDCb7ve38ijwiiWmNxz7GRxst/ fIOVNq8xPk+uFNg85Ob5hTaPMIVenjG8kZHKGJPTcXvXLf4VnOpnOoUZ5HoumZk4q0OYaeXfFa4J+ r/sdIHK2HQIBvCNzd5JueA==; In-Reply-To: <87edbwdqpv.fsf@gmx.de> (message from Michael Albinus on Wed, 27 Mar 2024 09:27:40 +0100) 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:317336 Archived-At: > From: Michael Albinus > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 09:27:40 +0100 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> It would be possible. I could change the Tramp version in the release > >> branch to the next anticipated release number. So I could change it now > >> to "2.6.3.29.4". However, I see at least two problems: > >> > >> - The Tramp version doesn't guarantee any longer uniqueness. Tramp > >> 2.6.3.29.4 would differ today and tomorrow. That was the reason to use > >> such an ambiguous version like 2.6.3-pre. > >> > >> - We might run into problems on ELPA. A user sees a builtin version of > >> Tramp 2.6.3.29.4, but in order to fix something for her there is also > >> Tramp 2.6.2.9 (let's say). I fear we'll have a hard time to explain, > >> that 2.6.2.9 is newer than 2.6.3.29.4. > > > > Then perhaps make-tarball.txt needs to say that the version of Tramp > > should be changed from X.Y.Z-pre to X.Y.Z as part of preparing the > > release? Or even do this automatically in admin/admin.el, as part of > > set-version? > > No. Release X.Y.Z would attribute the full release of Tramp, not only > the part which is integrated into Emacs. So what is it that you do with Tramp to make its parts in Emacs ready for a release? If I'd alerted you to the imminent release, what would you have done before telling me that Tramp is ready? > >> Perhaps it must not be coordinated with "me" only. A single > >> announcement, that there will be an emergency release within two days > >> would have helped. Usually, I scan Emacs related messages every single day. > >> > >> If I am unavailable that time, so be it. Not worse than now. > > > > Preparation of a release tarball is a precarious job: since we don't > > lock the Git repository while the release is being worked on, it must > > be done very quickly; any commits someone does during the time it > > takes to do all the steps necessary for producing the tarball is a > > setback that requires to go back several steps and start anew. So any > > additional dependency is a disadvantage I'd like to avoid. > > You could start the prepare the release tarball after the grace period. Theoretically, maybe. > >> (FWIW, I don't understand yet why 29.3 was such an emergency that it was > >> released w/o any warning in advance.) > > > > Because it makes no sense to announce in advance that Emacs has > > security vulnerabilities. It's akin to waving the proverbial red flag > > at a bull. > > I haven't proposed that such an announcement shall happen. I have only > proposed to send an alert like "Heads up! The next Emacs release will > happen on Sunday!". Without any explanation, that wouldn't be accepted by the community as we know it. There would be a flood of questions, and what could I possibly say in response? "I can tell you, but then I'll have to have you taken out and shot"? > Btw, I've got already the first rant that "Tramp 2.6.3-pre" is useless > for determining, whether a given patch is contained in Emacs 29.3. Right > they are! > > If you think this is bad enough, we can always release Emacs 29.4.