From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Gnus branches and sync with Emacs Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:06:49 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87eisdn3ng.fsf@marauder.physik.uni-ulm.de> <87skgri803.fsf@lifelogs.com> <871vobdxpu.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87eisbw0gf.fsf@marauder.physik.uni-ulm.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1248138430 12611 80.91.229.12 (21 Jul 2009 01:07:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:07:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ted Zlatanov , ding@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Chong Yidong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 21 03:07:02 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 1MT3or-0002tN-G4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 03:07:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50501 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MT3oq-0003Si-GG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:07:00 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MT3ol-0003Sa-Q3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:06:55 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MT3oh-0003S5-5d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:06:55 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=44827 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MT3oh-0003S0-01 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:06:51 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.pppoe.ca ([206.248.154.182]:43103 helo=ironport2-out.teksavvy.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MT3og-0005yI-FB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:06:50 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtIEAFexZEpFpZqY/2dsb2JhbACBUM8PhAwFhwI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,237,1246852800"; d="scan'208";a="41928596" Original-Received: from 69-165-154-152.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.165.154.152]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP; 20 Jul 2009 21:06:48 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id B3EAC7F66; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:06:49 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87eisbw0gf.fsf@marauder.physik.uni-ulm.de> (Reiner Steib's message of "Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:42:24 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.94 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:112879 gmane.emacs.gnus.general:68786 Archived-At: >> (The recent change of `mail-user-agent' may or may not be consistent >> with this plan. What's not clear right now is the amount of changes >> that need to be applied to sort out the incompatibilies between >> mail-mode and message-mode. If the required changes end up being too >> destabilizing, we should either switch mail-user-agent back, or fall >> back on the alternative plan of using the 23.1 branch for 23.2.) > I don't think the change of `mail-user-agent' an Richard's intends WRT > mail-mode/rf2047/mm-* are consistent with this plan, so I'm quite > puzzled about the plans for the Emacs trunk. AFAIK the change of mail-user-agent is not a problem in this regard (we don't actually need to make message-mode compatible with mail-mode; we just need to avertise the change more prominently). But between gdb-mi.el and the rfc2047 plans, I agree that it looks like trunk is not headed for a very-short cycle. So we may very well release a 23.2 from the release branch rather than from the trunk. I'm not too worried about it, tho. Stefan