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: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:10:21 -0700 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <2c3dbffa-b56c-ec31-2fa9-0ca6dc757cd2@cs.ucla.edu> References: <83ingkmqed.fsf@gnu.org> <52377n1qhv.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83mv5vktlj.fsf@gnu.org> <83ingijbmo.fsf@gnu.org> <18aea83f-80ea-756e-106a-1d27eb5fc38e@cs.ucla.edu> <83fubljtiq.fsf@gnu.org> <80bc870f-4ce0-bf34-a9ae-4cc50c796266@cs.ucla.edu> <83y3pdi21z.fsf@gnu.org> <83k20whwsd.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 1505754701 6121 195.159.176.226 (18 Sep 2017 17:11:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:11:41 +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 Mon Sep 18 19:11:37 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 1dtza3-0001MI-Nx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 19:11:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37958 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dtzaA-0007eJ-NO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:11:42 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35711) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dtzZ0-0007cO-W1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:10:32 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dtzYz-0003bm-Va for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:10:30 -0400 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:49254) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dtzYu-0003XK-Ch; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:10:24 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C35BE160BF0; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:10:22 -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 OQ8v1S8AGabX; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:10:22 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01FC7160CFE; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:10:22 -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 79FROC-DvQe1; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.9] (unknown [47.154.18.85]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D65AF160CE8; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:10:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83k20whwsd.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:218475 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii wrote: > it's na=C3=AFve to assume > time frames of minutes for these activities, unless we want to give up > QA. It's routine to do the kind of QA that you mention in minutes for project= s=20 Emacs's size. We're not up to that now, but it's reasonable to make it a = goal,=20 if this sort of thing is important to us. At any rate the procedure could= be=20 streamlined considerably compared to what it was last time. Whether it sh= ould=20 take 10 minutes or 2 hours is not something we need to decide now. > I still don't understand what you are suggesting, in practical terms, > and how will this be different from the current procedures, where > anyone could raise a security issue and propose a solution. We could try having a better relationship with Debian and one or two othe= rs, so=20 that the patches they consider to be security issues cause us to consider= =20 issuing new versions quickly. And we could be more proactive in sending o= ur=20 potential security patches to them early in our review process. > Are Debian and Fedora indeed enough? What about Red Hat? Fedora is Red Hat's early version, so we needn't worry about Red Hat sepa= rately. > What about Arch Linux? They wouldn't make my cut. Others of us might step up to be a liaison. op= enSUSE=20 is also a plausible candidate for that. > given the sample of distributions, how does one > figure out which ones of them include a given Emacs changeset, in > which versions of Emacs, and since what time. This info is all public now, at least for Debian and Red Hat.