From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mark H Weaver Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs Lisp's future Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:39:24 -0400 Message-ID: <87iokmpazn.fsf@yeeloong.lan> References: <87wq97i78i.fsf@earlgrey.lan> <87sijrv6v9.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87ppeux2fi.fsf@netris.org> <87y4titkdl.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1410966252 19600 80.91.229.3 (17 Sep 2014 15:04:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:04:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 17 17:04:07 2014 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 1XUGm5-0006SO-Em for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 17:04:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45541 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUGm4-0001eR-TM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:04:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47070) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUGQ4-0006qA-E3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:41:25 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUGPz-0002uZ-3V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:41:20 -0400 Original-Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:46648) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUGPz-0002pq-0N; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:41:15 -0400 Original-Received: from c-24-62-95-23.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([24.62.95.23] helo=yeeloong.lan) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1XUGPp-00015I-1D; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:41:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87y4titkdl.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (David Kastrup's message of "Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:03:02 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 96.39.62.75 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:04:02 -0400 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:174432 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > mhw@netris.org writes: > >> David Kastrup writes: >> >>> That's not all that much manpower. If you take a look at the commits in >>> the master branch that are not merges from the stable branch, I think >>> that more than 90% are from Andy Wingo. >> >> That's an interesting way to pretend that Ludovic and I don't exist, by >> excluding merges. > > Work on the stable branch is supposedly maintenance rather than > forward-looking development. > > It's actually a good sign for a project's stability if more people work > on maintenance than on new things. But I was commenting on the amount > of manpower getting work done on new things. Plenty of "new things" have been added to the stable-2.0 branch. Just read the NEWS file for 2.0. http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=guile.git;a=blob_plain;f=NEWS;hb=stable-2.0 >> Why should our contributions be excluded just because they start out >> on the stable-2.0 branch and later flow to master by way of merges? > > Would you claim that the stable-2.0 branch is where new developments are > generally done? That would seem like a somewhat unusual development > model. Yes, it's unusual, but whenever possible we add new modules and other features to the stable-2.0 branch, so that users of 2.0 will benefit from them. The exceptions are: * Work related to the new compiler/VM, which have changed substantially on the master branch. * Disruptive changes that carry a significant risk of adding new bugs. * Changes that would break API or ABI compatibility. Mark