Re: Emacs 29.3 released

[Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

Hi Eli,

>> 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.

>> 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.

>> (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!".

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!

<https://github.com/magit/magit/issues/3624#issuecomment-2022167445>

Best regards, Michael.