From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Francesco Potorti` Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [jerome.marant@free.fr: Re: Possible help with stable Emacs releases.] Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 08:24:26 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <1096291271.415813c757a26@imp6-q.free.fr> <20040927134714.GA20012@fencepost> <87hdphx91c.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <87655wswkv.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1096611909 17169 80.91.229.6 (1 Oct 2004 06:25:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 06:25:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, Jerome Marant , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , "Kim F. Storm" , Miles Bader Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 01 08:24:58 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CDGqg-00046s-00 for ; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 08:24:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CDGx6-0006GV-Lw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 02:31:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CDGwx-0006Fj-IM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 02:31:27 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CDGwx-0006FE-0m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 02:31:27 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CDGww-0006F5-T5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 02:31:26 -0400 Original-Received: from [146.48.83.182] (helo=pot.isti.cnr.it) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CDGqE-0004OR-Eg; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 02:24:30 -0400 Original-Received: from pot by pot.isti.cnr.it with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1CDGqA-0002Tg-00; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 08:24:26 +0200 Original-To: Rob Browning In-reply-to: <87655wswkv.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> (rlb@defaultvalue.org) X-fingerprint: 4B2 6187 5C3 D6B1 2E31 7666 9DF 2DC9 BE21 6115 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:27774 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:27774 >Imagine that 21.4 has been relased, and then imagine Jerome and I have >made 21.5, 21.6, and 21.7 bugfix releases using backports or patches >that were submitted to Debian, that have been approved by the Emacs >developers. Now imagine that you're preparing to make a new release >from the "main" upstream development branch. What do you call it? If >you pick 21.8 and then you're unexpectedly delayed for a month or two >(for whatever reason), then we're in trouble if we need to make a >bugfix release (imagine a data-destroying bug of some kind that can't >wait). We'd need something between 21.7 and 21.8. Fortunately this problem does not exist. The release number is generated the moment that the tarball is made, so no provision or number locking is needed in advance of the very last step of making the tarball. >Of course if you don't the possibility that you might have to keep >changing the pending upstream release number whenever we make a minor >bigfix release, then there's no problem, but even so, I suspect >there's also some value in people being able to easily tell the >difference between a truly minor bugfix release and one that's been >worked on for (historically) on the order of a year. While I want to make clear once again that this is a separate issue, which is completely independent from the previous one, yes, I agree that clearly indicating which releases are bugfix-only and which are not would be valuable.