From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs Lisp's future Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:03:02 +0200 Message-ID: <87y4titkdl.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87wq97i78i.fsf@earlgrey.lan> <87sijrv6v9.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87ppeux2fi.fsf@netris.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1410962634 32402 80.91.229.3 (17 Sep 2014 14:03:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:03:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: mhw@netris.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 17 16:03:45 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 1XUFpg-0001kc-Mi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:03:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45245 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUFpg-00019p-1R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:03:44 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36544) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUFpK-00012q-SO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:03:24 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUFpE-0008IN-Hf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:03:22 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:54090) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUFpE-0008HE-F4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:03:16 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59720 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUFpA-0000iW-PQ; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:03:13 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 11A5EE05F0; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:03:02 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87ppeux2fi.fsf@netris.org> (mhw@netris.org's message of "Wed, 17 Sep 2014 01:04:49 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 208.118.235.10 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:174427 Archived-At: 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. > 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. -- David Kastrup