From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Michael Reilly Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [rmail-mbox-branch]: expunge Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:03:49 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <41540D25.5090001@pajato.com> References: <1096006177.432792.29828.nullmailer@Update.UU.SE> <1096014084.739640.30529.nullmailer@Update.UU.SE> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1096027509 18031 80.91.229.6 (24 Sep 2004 12:05:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:05:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Alfred M. Szmidt" , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 24 14:04:56 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CAooq-0003xu-00 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:04:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAouv-0005J6-7L for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:11:13 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CAouA-00053v-3v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:10:26 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CAou5-00050H-15 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:10:23 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAou4-0004z0-MI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:10:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [209.113.133.197] (helo=copa.pajato.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.34) id 1CAonw-0006I2-Dr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:04:00 -0400 Original-Received: from [68.162.199.226] (H226.starbak.net [68.162.199.226]) by copa.pajato.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i8OC3mRX005478; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:03:49 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (X11/20040519) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Original-To: "Kim F. Storm" In-Reply-To: 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: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:27535 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:27535 Kim F. Storm wrote: > "Alfred M. Szmidt" writes: > > >> > [I wouldn't recommened merging this back into trunk by a long >> > shot, it is far to broken] >> >> It seems that the new rmail-mbox-branch code is quite far from >> 'production quality' so IMHO it is not ready for inclusion in 21.4. >> >>I'm kinda curious if anyone actually used the rmail-mbox-branch >>before... I was hoping that it would only contain minor bugs, but it >>contains some quite serious bugs (eating my mail is serious, not even >>being able to run it is serious since it means that it hasn't been >>even tested!). >> >> Do we really need to postpone the release of 21.4 just for this one >> feature? Can't it wait until 22.1 ? >> >>To me as a user of rmail, I would really prefer it to wait for 22.1. >>Right now it is far to broken, if there were more people that could >>actualy help out and test it and send patches, then just maybe. Even >>if I said that one shouldn't merge that branch into trunk, maybe that >>would be one good way to force people who use rmail to actually use it >>and fix it right now and get it ready for 21.4; but I don't know what >>the current status of the tree is right now. >> >>And anyway, the babyl format has been used for such a long time that >>postponing this feature until 22.1, 23.1 or even 100.1 won't do any >>harm anyway. >> >>Those are just my opionions as a user of rmail and emacs; feel free to >>ignore them completely. > > > I think your opinion (based on actual experience with using the code) > is very important (to me at least :-) as it clearly expresses the > concern I have had (and expressed) for some time regarding the mbox > branch: > > Unless we are 99.9% confident that the new mbox-rmail works as good > the the current babyl-rmail, releasing 21.4 with a broken/deficient > mbox-rmail would be a disaster! > > Your findings indicates to me that we are far from those 99.9% ... > > And as you say, babyl has done the job fine for MANY years, so what's > wrong using it a little longer (1-2 years isn't long in emacs > development :-) > As the author of much of the mbox code, I have long felt that the code should be tested in the trunk starting immediately after a release. Yes, there is no rush for this code. -pmr