From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: why bugs only fixed in trunk? Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 13:50:42 +0900 Message-ID: <87mwx1to0t.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1356497455 12933 80.91.229.3 (26 Dec 2012 04:50:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 04:50:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Leo Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 26 05:51:11 2012 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 1TnixS-000467-ME for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2012 05:51:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56988 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TnixD-0005ox-UA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 23:50:55 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35598) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TnixA-0005oB-5B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 23:50:53 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tnix8-0004iV-VC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 23:50:51 -0500 Original-Received: from mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:57610) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tnix8-0004hT-Ie for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 23:50:50 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1858B9708F8; Wed, 26 Dec 2012 13:50:43 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CCD561A273D; Wed, 26 Dec 2012 13:50:42 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta32) "habanero" b0d40183ac79 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 130.158.97.224 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:155885 Archived-At: Leo writes: > One of the incentives to report bugs in the pretest is to have them > squashed before the release. Unfortunately it seems most bugs are just > fixed in trunk (which could mean wait another year for the fix) even if > reported against a pretest build. > > Is there an implicitly agreed practice here? Emacs is following best practice, AFAICS. The only thing I personally would do differently is to maintain a bugfix-only branch for the previous release, but that wouldn't make a difference to your situation. If you want the most recent bug-fixes, the answer is obvious: use trunk. > Anyway, I think I am discouraged to report bugs and inclined to just > code a workaround in my .emacs. That seems self-defeating to me. Not going to special effort to test pre-releases would actually save you time, effort, and aggravation. But apparently you're talking about not reporting bugs in a version you are going to be using anyway. It would take only a minute to write a function that would copy the region containing the workaround, open a bug report buffer, yank the copy into the bug report, and send. It would take a minute per workaround to write a comment explaining what infelicity is being addressed, making the .emacs code itself a self-explanatory bug report. > Long ago I used to report bugs in the org mode that was bundled with > emacs but then the project's practice was to only fix in the development > trunk. Completely different case, though. It makes sense for a downstream distributor to simply hand such bug reports back to upstream, and resync when upstream releases. Too much divergence of downstream from any upstream branch just makes life a lot harder for everybody, to fix a few bugs that don't matter much to most users, who would prefer an earlier release and sync.