From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: release bugs [was Re: Processed: enriched.el code execution] Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 09:55:28 +0300 Message-ID: <838thpznkv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83tw0h0yem.fsf@gnu.org> <83lglr24ck.fsf@gnu.org> <83wp5azh33.fsf@gnu.org> <87aee030-ec9e-2178-c63c-20e0bd21fa4e@cs.ucla.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1504853756 23940 195.159.176.226 (8 Sep 2017 06:55:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 06:55:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rgm@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 08 08:55:40 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 1dqDCN-0005CG-9T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 08:55:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43595 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dqDCU-0007tf-BI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 02:55:38 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51379) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dqDCK-0007tC-0z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 02:55:32 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dqDCF-0004fG-Am for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 02:55:28 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:38964) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dqDCF-0004fA-7I; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 02:55:23 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2762 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1dqDCE-000449-Bo; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 02:55:22 -0400 In-reply-to: <87aee030-ec9e-2178-c63c-20e0bd21fa4e@cs.ucla.edu> (message from Paul Eggert on Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:32:48 -0700) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:218003 Archived-At: > Cc: rgm@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Paul Eggert > Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:32:48 -0700 > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > If this bug is indeed deemed > > urgent by the community, it will be fixed very soon, and in that case > > blocking the next release, which will not happen tomorrow or the next > > week, is meaningless. OTOH, if the bug will remain unfixed till we > > are ready to release Emacs 26.1, in, like, 6 months, then it means > > fixing it is not deemed important, and blocking the release for it > > makes no sense. > > A similar argument could be applied to any blocking bug No, it cannot. The point is that marking bugs as blocking and their urgency are two different and almost independent issues. > so why bother to mark any bug as blocking? Because it helps in management of a release. It's a managerial tool.