From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ingo Lohmar Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Is it time to drop ChangeLogs? Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 21:50:34 +0100 Message-ID: <87io0vcr51.fsf@acer.localhost.com> References: <56BE7E37.3090708@cs.ucla.edu> <4hd1rw1ubr.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83vb50wxhv.fsf@gnu.org> <87y49vz4cg.fsf@acer.localhost.com> <64a52598-ad53-498c-993c-67d7827dbdfc@default> <838u1uuuau.fsf@gnu.org> <878u1um2xl.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org> <87fuw090k7.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83y49spuxt.fsf@gnu.org> <87pov4achc.fsf@acer.localhost.com> <83r3fkpb3u.fsf@gnu.org> <87oaanctvw.fsf@acer.localhost.com> <837fhbo0lq.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457556669 27099 80.91.229.3 (9 Mar 2016 20:51:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 20:51:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 09 21:51:05 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1adl4N-0002pM-0O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 21:50:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44430 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adl4M-0000hU-H9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 15:50:58 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50454) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adl46-0000dh-CZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 15:50:43 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adl45-0001fQ-Cq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 15:50:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wm0-x22b.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::22b]:32997) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adl41-0001dn-76; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 15:50:37 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wm0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id l68so2806541wml.0; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 12:50:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=Ml/sknr1IuZgiFIqDtTjZ908IWwBaW1ucmcJQmSaTxc=; b=wqxi7EgaAIiSfgc7LW9ds1BEcw/j3D/3uyyq0zNDQqKbyq7sch5VGRCdFjxVALtncu 1hpJoso014+pyr2tkyrJwAFHJvCUijd7Hzjm9IbERviSVEp0qnL+HGO2xxNotUXmwftd dcTkb4X65as8306b+p0H1xTAnz9wmfCUJca+J7AVzi+pWfUOFnLuNDNHc2oHKmoVQYHI r+dC1Y48gzFflHxTsEu+aUsUbiSx0r5Uzn0uTyOuFB3HJLC7VWO8S39DYS9HXkOpeykf pjpSwGlv6vEc4drOkDkP/MziNRLUutgn5b4AL/HGxZ2rFOSK5etnGrtJm4rmtNcebAif BabQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references :user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=Ml/sknr1IuZgiFIqDtTjZ908IWwBaW1ucmcJQmSaTxc=; b=LfImcYAZFPUq0NEeNuXwcDzOiGZnSFnUqMELk+NxyyLtrSessNyJ5pojrNXFnDIAVc Ec3e97EQgKheKJE+jdXUQIeS5Dmd1WOXx2Qbago6owgvMo9x+Rq6kl4xOntFbV4BQZcN 9KXe9EqDQwasDAMY9Rt8zykcETFqqWnkBvUH9sjSfhpsWMvO86ulFExuY2gXV//uxn4j M/xN15quScDVCxmyrMRPSy6cCyk/l2eA0DWn4Dr0oqWNH0L1az71kZwY0y0ptHFzyAq8 ckc6MK/iTHI+i6JAGVbgEHMxJBhy09DlDQpxGu2f+mEQnqDDWYzAi87tT5r9k7r6W0Dk AasQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJK4FuuOl4UIGZp9RmqokxpXgpzSvYnrpjIbva0wGBoosynr51JN3bOaTGexzo1+eg== X-Received: by 10.194.236.170 with SMTP id uv10mr311537wjc.32.1457556636457; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 12:50:36 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost (xdsl-87-79-135-57.netcologne.de. [87.79.135.57]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u3sm334976wmg.15.2016.03.09.12.50.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Mar 2016 12:50:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <837fhbo0lq.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.2+113~g6332e6e (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/25.0.90.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c09::22b X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:201320 Archived-At: On Wed, Mar 09 2016 22:30 (+0200), Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> > Emacs development doesn't work by requiring each commit be posted for >> > review as prerequisite for committing, so what Oscar suggests is not >> > possible. (Please don't ask why, it was explained many times >> > already.) >> >> Do you mean in this thread or elsewhere? > > Both. (This is not the first time these issues are discussed.) > >> I would honestly appreciate it if you could point me to such a >> discussion, as I am not aware of the arguments. > > In one word: manpower. In 3 words: lack of manpower. You have omitted the part where I said that I do not advocate a mandatory review. Several other schemes (some of them highly, perhaps too highly, refined) have been proposed. > >> In fact, in this very thread, the previous Emacs maintainer >> has contemplated an automatic queueing system, so it surprises me that >> such a scheme should be totally out of the question. > > It's not out of the question. But we are just contemplating it. > Before we could rely on it enough to make significant decisions like > the one discussed here, we'd need stop contemplating, install the > procedures to implement such a queuing system, run it for a while, > perhaps augment it some, until it's reliable enough and brings > consistently good results. _Then_, and no earlier, we can base > changes in development process on such a system. We are not there > yet. Until we are, we need to find a workable solution with what we > have now. No disagreement here. I am nowhere near an anti-Changelog zealot, BTW. It's just that I think there were/are a lot of smoke-and-mirrors arguments flying around. In fact, I think that your above paragraph is a much better argument to keep Changelogs around for the time being than any arguments that have been made in this thread alluding to their importance in the development process. > >> > Find a better and more reliable way of dealing with the problems >> > described here, and I'll be the first to agree not to reintroduce >> > ChangeLogs. >> >> Several solutions to both a) and b) were proposed in this thread. > > Unfortunately, they don't fit the bill. See the rest of the thread > for why. This blanket statement is exactly as helpful as saying that they would work perfectly fine. We obviously disagree on this.