From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs 21.2 Date: 23 Mar 2002 08:54:25 +0900 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <87g02si2fi.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> References: Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1016843659 14681 127.0.0.1 (23 Mar 2002 00:34:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:34:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Eli Zaretskii' , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16oZUA-0003og-00 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 01:34:18 +0100 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16oZb3-00014G-00 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 01:41:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16oZTm-0004fG-00; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:33:54 -0500 Original-Received: from smtp02.fields.gol.com ([203.216.5.132]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16oZDw-0002o8-00; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:17:32 -0500 Original-Received: from tc-2-184.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp ([203.216.25.184] helo=tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp) by smtp02.fields.gol.com with esmtp (Magnetic Fields) id 16oZDa-0006eu-00; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 09:17:10 +0900 Original-Received: by tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1CD123045; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 08:54:26 +0900 (JST) Original-To: "Marshall, Simon" System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 23 X-Abuse-Complaints: abuse@gol.com Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:2146 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:2146 "Marshall, Simon" writes: > I spent a large amount of my own time tracking down problems with the > last pretest & coming up with some fixes & testing others'. I did it > because I thought it would be worth it: I thought the next Emacs > release would fix those problems. Why would I bother if fixes > wouldn't appear in the next release? If a pretest doesn't fix bug-that-annoys-you-X, which you know is fixed in CVS, then it seems perfectly fair to bring that up as an issue with the pretest -- as was stated earlier, many things don't get put into the release branch simply because no one thought too, not necessarily because they were dangerous. On the other hand, a traditional pretest is too late for many kinds of changes, so I wonder if it would be a good idea to officialy have two stages in the pretest: (stage 1) Did everything important get fixed? (stage 2) [a more normal `no big changes' pretest] -Miles -- Suburbia: where they tear out the trees and then name streets after them. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel