From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Merging native-comp and pgtk Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:24:19 -0500 Message-ID: References: <07D5E64D-DAD0-45B3-B272-627A73D7CBAE@gmail.com> <87wnvlecrw.fsf@gnus.org> <83sg69o3av.fsf@gnu.org> <87mtwhctte.fsf@gnus.org> <459A0475-E3E7-4159-82DF-93809CCF1E24@gmail.com> <87eehng52n.fsf@gnus.org> <87mtwbye5b.fsf@gmail.com> <87czx7ycva.fsf@tcd.ie> <87eehmyalr.fsf@gmail.com> <877dneoewi.fsf@tcd.ie> <875z2yy6z7.fsf@gmail.com> <878s7twq2t.fsf@gmail.com> <84adc238-c424-bb6b-da28-c4232172da5b@gmx.at> <83wnvddtgh.fsf@gnu.org> <834kige2m8.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="23526"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 13 14:39:43 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lAv9C-00060m-D2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 14:39:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36038 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lAv9B-0006pG-CJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:39:41 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50930) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lAuuS-0001BR-5k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:24:29 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:29426) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lAuuN-0005LU-PI; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:24:27 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 51DD4440CD7; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:24:22 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DE26E440B7C; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:24:20 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1613222660; bh=sodifev0Hi1QA57cmd1h012xEoU+2XoziuwwHgoRE6k=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=HqrroZ7DpcKWyFOQSvgkXqk9Jokng0dswSyD5RbJoSk9NdF9vOfdcAfc70E9a+wOF YgnV7OPsp4566BfFHJPgLkXDMqymWfdr3mCGq0jg5KKcfPLbjdTffXzuolmdDNJFC+ EUMjUpZ4kRFcnNpKMC0m8X0aZBEXByWLPvvcW7OR18BTMhqZRpDKF5jcluGYx4tfTp /sfADpD2q3GL5mwe8luNHEPDeZFtECC1j67CiBvv6dCDSp3r12LW/whXv6GM70uHPN rX02aPINCzR+OVNm9SxDOe2SCQ473ThwUnXI73Juhe38xTwaCPQKXywKkYcyVXwyhL 9DQc3j0oCSppw== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.41.47]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 560C91201DD; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:24:20 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <834kige2m8.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 13 Feb 2021 11:30:39 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:264619 Archived-At: >> So now I'm wondering: what do you think should be the criteria for >> inclusion into `master`? > In general? No, I meant specifically (tho it's of course based on a general principles, but these can change from case to case). >> As written above, I thought the plan was to include those as >> experimental features for Emacs-28.1 > IMO, it makes little sense having these features as experimental in > Emacs 28.1, because that would mean their promotion to mainstream > would be delayed till Emacs 29, and that's too far away for such > important features. I think we should release them in Emacs 28.1 as > fully supported ones. Yes, that could delay Emacs 28.1 a bit, but I > think users will want these two features badly enough to justify such > a delay (if it indeed happens). Great, that clarifies part of the plan. It also means it's that much more important to merge them soon into `master`. >> so I thought the criteria were >> going to be something like: >> - Code is clean enough: doesn't risk introducing regressions into the rest >> of the code. >> - It's very likely that the feature will reach maturity (i.e. lose >> the "experimental" label) in some not too distant future. >> - It's already usable enough that most people who're looking forward to >> this feature will be fairly satisfied if they try it (it might still >> have some rough edges, but by and large it works). > > I'm not sure we want to codify the criteria, not in general, anyway. I'm sure we don't. I was just drawing general lines that might apply to these two cases, to clarify what I'm trying to find out. >> Leaving a feature waiting on a branch for extended period of time >> imposes a lot of extra work to keep it up to date (and it can very >> discouraging to have to do that if there's no clear set of "things >> missing"). > I agree with the principle, but its short summary is "as soon as > possible", not "urgently". We should, of course, merge each of these > branches as soon as they are ready. What is still unclear for me is what it is that's still "missing". Stefan