From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [jerome.marant@free.fr: Re: Possible help with stable Emacs releases.] Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:42:34 -0400 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> <01c4a6f8$Blat.v2.2.2$f6ef61c0@zahav.net.il> <20040930143404.GB2296@fencepost> <01c4a703$Blat.v2.2.2$9a627220@zahav.net.il> <1096559619.415c2c031623c@imp4-q.free.fr> <01c4a707$Blat.v2.2.2$99a73ba0@zahav.net.il> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1096566201 17380 80.91.229.6 (30 Sep 2004 17:43:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:43:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rlb@defaultvalue.org, jmarant@free.fr, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 30 19:42:56 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 1CD4xE-0007ku-00 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:42:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CD53d-0000aq-1q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:49:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CD53S-0000Yz-6f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:49:22 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CD53R-0000Yf-JM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:49:21 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CD53R-0000YV-G1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:49:21 -0400 Original-Received: from [132.204.24.67] (helo=mercure.iro.umontreal.ca) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CD4wx-00087a-8w; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:42:39 -0400 Original-Received: from hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca (hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.50]) by mercure.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E168282B0; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:42:37 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from asado.iro.umontreal.ca (asado.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.24.84]) by hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3397B4AC656; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:42:35 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: by asado.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 1C8788CA23; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:42:35 -0400 (EDT) Original-To: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: <01c4a707$Blat.v2.2.2$99a73ba0@zahav.net.il> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:06:33 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-DIRO-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-DIRO-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-DIRO-MailScanner-SpamCheck: n'est pas un polluriel, SpamAssassin (score=0, requis 5) X-MailScanner-From: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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:27733 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:27733 > I don't understand the question; are you saying that bugfix releases > don't need to go through a pretest phase? I wasn't aware something > like that was being proposed in these discussions. Can we distinguish issues here, lest we end up frustrating people. I see 3 parts: 1 - "unify" the Debian patches and the RC branch. I.e. that the Debian maintainer install fixes directly on the RC branch rather than in some unrelated Debian-only area. 2 - somehow change the bugfix release process (to be more frequent), again here, basically leveraging from Debian's own bugfix-release process. 3 - fiddle with the release numbering. As long as 1 and 2 are done in a way that it not Debian-only (i.e. things like patches that introduce bugs on non-Debian systems), 1 and 2 seem like good ideas to me, basically giving us more manpower (which is currently only beneficial to Debian). I think the issue of whether we can do 2 or not is mostly irrelevant: if the pretests take too much time, then we necessarily won't make them more often. I.e. if it works it works and if it doesn't, then it works as before. I don't see what's to discuss. Stefan