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: Reordering etc/NEWS Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 11:23:59 +0200 Message-ID: <86sla6uz80.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <2wmz0iriyj.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1178702833 8416 80.91.229.12 (9 May 2007 09:27:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 09:27:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 09 11:27:11 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 1HliRy-0004bF-CV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 May 2007 11:27:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HliZ8-0007k4-I0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 May 2007 05:34:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HliWG-00079Z-S9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 May 2007 05:31:37 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HliWF-00078Q-98 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 May 2007 05:31:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HliWE-00077J-7d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 May 2007 05:31:34 -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 1HliP1-0007x8-Mf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 May 2007 05:24:08 -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 LAA21629 for ; Wed, 9 May 2007 11:24:04 +0200 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail 12132 invoked from network); 9 May 2007 09:24:04 -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 ; 9 May 2007 09:24:04 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A48EF8F23C; Wed, 9 May 2007 11:23:59 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Kim F. Storm's message of "Wed\, 09 May 2007 10\:57\:35 +0200") 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:70677 Archived-At: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) writes: > Richard Stallman writes: > >> But we are not your enemies, and this is not a conspiracy to >> badger you. It just happened that quite a few of us disagree >> with your ideas >> >> And some of them have been badgering me to do things their way. I >> don't want to participate in discussions with that feel to them. > > I don't know if you feel that _I_ have been badgering you, but that > has never been my intention -- my only concern has been for the best > of the project. > > You obviously have very specific ideas and principles on how to > "make progress towards" a release -- but it is also a fact (IMO) > that those ideas are not efficient in terms of actually "making" a > release. The suitability depends on what one wants to release. For GPLv3, it is quite appropriate to take all the time it takes for the finishing touches. But Emacs is not a work to be _finished_, it is a work to be continued. And the continuation has been blocked for years by the release. At the current point of time we have reached the state where nobody knows what the HEAD and release branches are supposed to be for, respectively. The situation has been bad for development for years. Right now it is catastrophic for _any_ work since there is no place in CVS which is designated for work of any particular kind. Creating additional branches unnecessarily to get any work done causes additional merge burdens later. And there is no sense in having proliferating branches because the project maintainer refuses to get "badgered" into telling people what the policy concerning the branches is supposed to be. Creating desperation branches is no solution, since the merge decision still depends on an active statement of policy. I don't get it. Most of the developers on this list have invested large amounts of time and energy into making Emacs as great as it is. Considering them enemies does not make sense, and it makes even less sense to stop _every_ developer in his track as a sort of collective punitive measure. We need to know what kind of work can commence on HEAD and the release branch, because some of that work requires a concerted effort (like the multitty merge) of several people. -- David Kastrup