From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Coordinating patches [was Re: Change in compile.el] Date: 17 Feb 2004 11:16:11 +0100 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1077009635 14731 80.91.224.253 (17 Feb 2004 09:20:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:20:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 17 10:20:25 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1At1Oz-0004Os-00 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:20:25 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1At1Oz-0000Gp-00 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:20:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1At1Lx-00015B-Gz for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:17:17 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1At1Lb-00013y-Vf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:16:55 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1At1L5-0000k7-14 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:16:55 -0500 Original-Received: from [212.88.64.25] (helo=mail-relay.sonofon.dk) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1At1L4-0000k3-As for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:16:22 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 12665 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2004 09:16:20 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO kfs-l.imdomain.dk.cua.dk) (213.83.150.2) by 0 with SMTP; 17 Feb 2004 09:16:20 -0000 Original-To: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 39 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:20017 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:20017 Eli Zaretskii writes: > How is one supposed to know that a new version is in the works? We > don't really have a machinery for approving patches, so there's no > good way to coordinate patches. We have been discussing the new compile.el on the mailing lists. Also, the patch you applied to keyboard.c also had a nasty bug which I had already raised on the mailing list, and thus explained why it should not be applied in its current form. I was quite surprised to see it installed anyway. Given several incidents over the last few weeks where patches do more harm than good, I think we need to tighten the procedure of applying "3rd party" patches. What about this simple procedure: Before applying a 3rd party patch, a message is sent to emacs-devel with the subject: PATCH REVIEW: [title from original mail] If no objections are received to that mail in 36 hours, you are free to go ahead an install it. If it later turns out that there were problems with the patch anyway, we are all to blame :-) I know it is more work, but so is discussing and fixing the problems of a bad patch afterwards... BTW we shall NOT follow this procudure for changes made by the project members -- that would be very counter-productive. -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk