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: 21.2.90 pretest, 21.3, 21.4... Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 08:05:29 +0200 (IST) Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200211041831.gA4IV0N24471@rum.cs.yale.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1036478021 32444 80.91.224.249 (5 Nov 2002 06:33:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 06:33:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 188xHP-0008R8-00 for ; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 07:33:39 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 188xPI-0002tF-00 for ; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 07:41:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 188xEp-0007Iw-00; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 01:30:59 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 188wqH-0007hS-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 01:05:37 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 188wqD-0007dl-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 01:05:36 -0500 Original-Received: from is.elta.co.il ([199.203.121.2]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 188wqB-0007bL-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 01:05:32 -0500 Original-Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA16636; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 08:05:30 +0200 (IST) X-Sender: eliz@is Original-To: Stefan Monnier In-Reply-To: <200211041831.gA4IV0N24471@rum.cs.yale.edu> Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:9127 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:9127 On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Stefan Monnier wrote: > I obviously agree since I called for a feature freeze a few weeks > (months?) back already. IMHO, it doesn't make sense to feature-freeze the trunk unless we decide not to release from the branch anymore. Since there was a decision to release 21.3 from the branch, the decision not to feature-freeze followed almost automatically. > I also think that 21.2 should have been taken > from the trunk rather than from the RC branch and same thing for 21.3. For 21.3, maybe. But for 21.2, I disagree. You effectively suggest to eliminate bugfix releases, which I think would be wrong: users will have no stable versions to rely upon. > As Dave has explained the bug-fix release 21.3 will still be riddled with > bugs FWIW, I think ``riddled with bugs'' is a grave exaggeration. > Maybe it will be a bit > more stable from one particular point of view because it doesn't use any > new code that might introduce new bugs, but I'm definitely not convinced > that it outweighs the number of unfixed non-trivial bugs. So do you really think that introduction of significant new features doesn't destabilize Emacs? That is, do you suggest to skip branch releases because they are not more stable _in_principle_, or just because we are too inept to make them significantly more stable?