From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should overlays evaporate by default? Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 20:25:27 -0400 Message-ID: References: <200505101556.j4AFupmb015431@brains.moreideas.ca> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1116030993 13880 80.91.229.2 (14 May 2005 00:36:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 00:36:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bob@rattlesnake.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs@whaite.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 14 02:44:31 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DWklQ-0005jt-1C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 14 May 2005 02:44:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DWkmw-00028Z-42 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 20:45:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DWkjw-0007SG-6P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 20:42:48 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DWkcz-00052d-53 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 20:35:42 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DWkcu-0004yN-KU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 20:35:32 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DWkaI-0007QQ-TH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 20:32:50 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1DWkT9-0005uP-DL; Fri, 13 May 2005 20:25:27 -0400 Original-To: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) In-reply-to: (storm@cua.dk) 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: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:37104 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:37104 We do "pretesting" all the time with CVS emacs -- there are many ordinary users using it already for everyday work. It is not the same. A different and larger group of people will start trying a wider range of Lisp packages when we start formal pretest. We will find bugs then that have not been noticed hitherto. > Why postpone this till the pretest of the subsequent version? Because it will delay releasing 22.x. It would cause a delay to the extent that the work necessary to fix the code would take some time. It is not clear to me that it is better for that time to occur later than now. But if no one wants to do this work, then the question is moot. I am not sure this thing is really the right thing to do, at any time. It could be more trouble than it is worth, and we might prefer just to find the things that fail to reclaim their overlays.