From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eli Zaretskii" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs 21.2 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 10:59:44 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <9791-Sat23Mar2002105944+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> References: <87g02si2fi.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1016874659 25267 127.0.0.1 (23 Mar 2002 09:10:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 09:10:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: simon.marshall@misys.com, 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 16ohYB-0006ZQ-00 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 10:10:59 +0100 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16ohfE-000298-00 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 10:18:17 +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 16ohY3-0005Uw-00; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 04:10:51 -0500 Original-Received: from balder.inter.net.il ([192.114.186.15]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16ohQv-00055E-00; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 04:03:30 -0500 Original-Received: from zaretsky (diup-219-49.inter.net.il [213.8.219.49]) by balder.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id BGR23655; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 11:03:06 +0200 (IST) Original-To: miles@gnu.org X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 In-Reply-To: <87g02si2fi.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> (message from Miles Bader on 23 Mar 2002 08:54:25 +0900) 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:2151 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:2151 > From: Miles Bader > Date: 23 Mar 2002 08:54:25 +0900 > > 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] Alternatively, we could announce a planned beginning of a pretest some time, like a month, in advance, and ask the pretesters to try the CVS code. (A snapshot of the CVS could be prepared at that time, if accessing the CVS is not good enough.) In general, development on both the trunk and branch is a pain, and also prone to errors, so it should be avoided, I think. It's better to have a feature freeze when the branch is cut, I think. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel