From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juanma Barranquero Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Release branch plans Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 00:43:47 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87d37q7ld4.fsf@gnu.org> <871uo6puac.fsf@gnu.org> <83ty12hxoa.fsf@gnu.org> <83zkauc96p.fsf@gnu.org> <83y5qec658.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1333406691 31226 80.91.229.3 (2 Apr 2012 22:44:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 22:44:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , cyd@gnu.org, Andreas Schwab , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 03 00:44:50 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 1SEpzU-0002kP-53 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 00:44:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46810 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEpzT-000345-Gl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:44:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58786) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEpzP-0002xr-Rj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:44:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEpzO-0007YB-9B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:44:43 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pz0-f52.google.com ([209.85.210.52]:59425) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEpzF-0007Ul-9u; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:44:33 -0400 Original-Received: by dake40 with SMTP id e40so2609401dak.39 for ; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:44:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=F8sYNdU26n6hv4OWuG5q+xfYVZyzxobfehUdmhlU+Qk=; b=t4jzsFJjemrHiXP0n4SbRO9VX7o9NRN+L6fkxwyPdirHGQjP5eP+K+7e5xl8HhZio7 f25s7SzCwu1DCuIqIhhsOfTCbj8yDN5ieUWgY6Q6X6elqRqC+V9wZIqLMrtNljczkkd5 g8sZGf14hkBC8npVYggH9ultp2j3f7K6Cw8WiCWGG2cnJlX6wmzF2m1r5jsf6skKfJLw 0+kct7FQdqAp6PchDFWvxSs8i2kMMNAdtV4niCHiwC4vLZZ9OBMtRFHqzSwpTP0P6p/N c544UFbfSwAJtNj2l9VepxK7XOgAJtVW6nh4jhNGF8CQ+NcMGYHACWZpRwY1IDMt1MiB lu/Q== Original-Received: by 10.68.216.35 with SMTP id on3mr24156585pbc.150.1333406667997; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:44:27 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.142.204.14 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 15:43:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 209.85.210.52 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:149310 Archived-At: On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 00:20, Glenn Morris wrote: > The new proposal is presumably to commit everything on the trunk, and > label those things that need to also go to the release branch in some > way (eg "merge to emacs-24 branch"). [...] > The log of the release branch would be essentially useless (IMO). Every > single commit would be "merge from trunk", with very few of the merged > commits having actually been applied. There are commits that are only intended for trunk, and others that are only intended for the release branch (the poster case being a bug that it is fixed in a conservative way in the release branch and in a more invasive, and hopefully better or more generic, way in the trunk), so it's not really true that every single commit would be a merge from trunk, though many (most?) would. > So I think it would be worse than the current situation. In absolute terms, you're right. But Eli's argument is, I think, that the state of the trunk is more important. Having a worse trunk's history in exchange of a cleaner release branch's history is a net loss because we do, on the long term, orders of magnitude more work with the trunk that the release branch. Particularly "historical research" to determine when/how/why/by-whom an old change was done. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Juanma