From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Relationship between 23.1.90 pretest and 23.2 pretest? Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:05:39 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87k4wux5ls.fsf@red-bean.com> <87skbialcq.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1260465457 10507 80.91.229.12 (10 Dec 2009 17:17:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:17:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Karl Fogel , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Chong Yidong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 10 18:17:30 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NImdk-0005qU-Iw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:17:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60884 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NImdk-0004qN-C4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:17:20 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NImU5-0000F4-5X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:07:21 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NImTz-00006X-Ul for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:07:20 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39885 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NImTz-000066-OU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:07:15 -0500 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:47479) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NImU0-0004Ya-4H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:07:16 -0500 Original-Received: from faina.iro.umontreal.ca (faina.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.26.177]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id nBAH5dQ2019574; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:05:39 -0500 Original-Received: by faina.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 6C4BF3A008; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:05:39 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87skbialcq.fsf@stupidchicken.com> (Chong Yidong's message of "Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:40:21 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV3425=0 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:118527 Archived-At: >> We've just released a pretest. In some places, it is referred to as the >> "23.2 pretest" and in other places as "the 23.1.90" pretest. >> >> These are the same thing right? If not, what's their relationship? (I >> looked for, but couldn't find, a document about our release processes.) > The pretests leading up to Emacs 23.2 are 23.1.90, 23.1.91, 23.1.92, > etc. Yes, in my mind "the pretest" is not a product but a process. So the "pretest for Emacs-23.2" includes releasing a bunch of versions, which we traditionally name 23.1.9x (which can grow to 23.1.99x or to 23.1.10x depending on who's in charge at the time we move past 23.1.99). If I see "the 23.2 pretest code", that would usually mean "whichever version was last distributed during the pretest". A pretest version such as 23.1.93 becomes immediately obsolete the moment 23.1.94 is cut. Actually, not just obsolete: any mention (let alone use) of 23.1.93 after 23.1.94 has been released is of very bad taste and will be duly noted by Santa. >> And the reason I'm asking, of course, is to check that we're ready to >> finally do the bzr switchover. The end of [2] implies that it is now >> time to do that, but I wanted to make sure before starting the thread. > Yes, I am in favor of moving forward on the bzr switchover. Yes, now is a good time for it. The only problems I can think of are: - I'm leaving tomorrow for the country of Borges (and Maradona), so until January I will be less available. - loggerhead doesn't seem to be working any more on Savannah. - the commit-diff email system is not yet working, and I just learned that Savannah has something implemented for it, so it would make a lot of sense to try and use that. Personally I'm not convinced those should stop us from switching now since I expect the Xmas season to be a good "quiet" time for the switch: 1- declare a 100% freeze on any commits. 2- ask Andreas to perform one last conversion. 3- ask the Savannah admins to make the CVS repository read-only. 4- when the conversion is done and looks good: declare victory. 5- start rebuilding the country: get Loggerhead working, get commit-diffs emails working, get bzr+ssh working, ... Stefan