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: unicode-2 and multitty Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 13:12:50 +0200 Message-ID: <86k5vo266l.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <87647ooxwm.fsf@zip.com.au> <462CC030.8030203@gmail.com> <87mz0y8vyk.fsf@zip.com.au> <86vef90x54.fsf_-_@lola.quinscape.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1178277181 26044 80.91.229.12 (4 May 2007 11:13:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 11:13:01 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 04 13:12:59 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 1Hjvid-00006l-40 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 May 2007 13:12:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjvpF-0002YB-Nm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 May 2007 07:19:49 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HjvpB-0002Xw-E8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 May 2007 07:19:45 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Hjvp9-0002Xc-Tz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 May 2007 07:19:45 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hjvp9-0002XZ-Oe for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 May 2007 07:19:43 -0400 Original-Received: from pc3.berlin.powerweb.de ([62.67.228.11]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HjviW-0003jy-5N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 May 2007 07:12:52 -0400 Original-Received: from quinscape.de (pd95b0fdb.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.91.15.219]) by pc3.berlin.powerweb.de (8.9.3p3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19571 for ; Fri, 4 May 2007 13:12:47 +0200 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail 12641 invoked from network); 4 May 2007 11:12:50 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO lola.quinscape.zz) ([10.0.3.43]) (envelope-sender ) by ns.quinscape.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 4 May 2007 11:12:50 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 2386A8F95C; Fri, 4 May 2007 13:12:50 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri\, 04 May 2007 13\:39\:56 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.91 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:70540 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: David Kastrup >> Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 11:13:27 +0200 >> >> While the release is "imminent", letting HEAD and the release >> branch diverge would likely be impolite. > > ??? I thought the main reason for cutting the release branch was to > allow development on the trunk without affecting the release. So > what's impolite about committing changes on the trunk now? We are not talking about "committing changes" but a branch merge. At the current point of time, the decision "commit to both HEAD and RELEASE_22 branch or just one" is easy to make on a case by case base. After merging a branch into HEAD, this will become harder. Since we have had quite a few commits into both locations that clearly are not prerelease fixes, it pretty much requires Richard to decide what should go where in the case of those two. But Richard is a scarce resource, so it does not make sense that everybody waits for his word on everything. Things would be different if Richard clearly stated that we can commence with the _serious_ work on HEAD. So instead of having developers idle until such a time, I proposed creating a branch for the impeding work. Personally, I would consider HEAD the more logical choice. Which of the two it should be is Richard's call. Doing neither would seem like a waste of developer resources. >> Would it be better etiquette to create or use a different mailing >> list than this one for discussing such work on the unicode-2 >> branch? > > Please don't start another schism. A schism? Thinking about how developers can start working in the previously agreed upon way without disrupting those who still are focused on the delayed release process seems hardly like a schism. There seems to be little sense in most developers idling while the remaining problems concerning the release are still being sorted out. Emacs has a variety of branches in CVS: those hardly constitute schisms. There is currently a separate mailing list for the multitty branch (which is not yet in CVS but really should go there now, I think): discussion of its problems have been kept off this list for now. I don't think that it is amiss to ask whether the merge discussion should go on there, here or elsewhere. -- David Kastrup