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: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 08:33:30 +0200 (IST) Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200211052050.gA5KoYt30848@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 1036565737 548 80.91.224.249 (6 Nov 2002 06:55:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 06:55:37 +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 189K69-00008M-00 for ; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 07:55:33 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 189KEW-0001n7-00 for ; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 08:04:13 +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 189Jzo-0006hR-00; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 01:49:00 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 189Jku-00011u-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 01:33:36 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 189Jkq-00010z-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 01:33:35 -0500 Original-Received: from is.elta.co.il ([199.203.121.2]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 189Jko-0000xk-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 01:33:31 -0500 Original-Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA01518; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 08:33:30 +0200 (IST) X-Sender: eliz@is Original-To: Stefan Monnier In-Reply-To: <200211052050.gA5KoYt30848@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:9166 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:9166 On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > Maybe this can be achieved by making > > > "smaller" releases, where each new release has fewer new features. > > > > That requires a higher degree of control than we have now over what > > changes are installed on the trunk. As long as each change does not > > need to be approved before it's installed, I think we cannot guarantee > > that some new features are postponed. > > That's not true. We can and do declare feature freezes and we can > impose them pretty effectively by shaming the poor soul who disobeys > and undoing his change. Feature freeze means there are _no_ new features until the thaw; Kai suggested a finer control (allow some new features, but not others). I also have a clear impression that reverting changes is something we do only as the last resort (and for a number of good reasons; I don't suggest doing that more often!). I don't remember a single change that was reverted because we thought it would destabilize the code, I think the few cases of chnage revrsal were all due to known bugs they caused, not because we were afraid of unknown bugs.