From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Why wasn't the 25.3 release based on the then-head of the emacs-25 branch? Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 22:14:57 -0700 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <18aea83f-80ea-756e-106a-1d27eb5fc38e@cs.ucla.edu> References: <83ingkmqed.fsf@gnu.org> <52377n1qhv.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83mv5vktlj.fsf@gnu.org> <83ingijbmo.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1505625326 619 195.159.176.226 (17 Sep 2017 05:15:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 05:15:26 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 Cc: rgm@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 17 07:15:21 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dtRvJ-0008MW-Sn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 07:15:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59411 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dtRvR-00020T-4f for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 01:15:25 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47441) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dtRvC-0001vv-TJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 01:15:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dtRvC-0005Cz-0f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 01:15:10 -0400 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:55618) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dtRv7-000578-Eb; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 01:15:05 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41C3F160D5B; Sat, 16 Sep 2017 22:14:59 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id uGwTbMVHJiiD; Sat, 16 Sep 2017 22:14:58 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89DF7160D5C; Sat, 16 Sep 2017 22:14:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 7JvDRsfONf-p; Sat, 16 Sep 2017 22:14:58 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.9] (unknown [47.154.18.85]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D1A7160D5A; Sat, 16 Sep 2017 22:14:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83ingijbmo.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Language: en-US X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 131.179.128.68 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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 Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:218388 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii wrote: > But not for an emergency release that fixes a security > vulnerability: that one must not have any issues or problems It is impossible to achieve 100% safety in any realistic release. Even th= e 25.3=20 release, which was simple and straightforward, had at least one minor poi= nt of=20 confusion in its release announcement that could cause problems for peopl= e=20 running older Emacs versions. This was because (as Glenn noted) the annou= ncement=20 gave the wrong version number for when the remote-exploit bug was introdu= ced. 25.3 is good enough, and it's in the books now. But moving forward, we ca= n do=20 better the next time we have an emergency release. As things stand the pr= ocess=20 takes too much time, and requires too much manual work, and apparently on= ly one=20 person can actually make a release. These are all things that can be impr= oved on.