From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Very happy with emacs-25 so far Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 20:37:47 +0200 Message-ID: <83d1qn65j8.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83shzm70zv.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2kx7reo.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458585511 16684 80.91.229.3 (21 Mar 2016 18:38:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:38:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bozhidar@batsov.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: John Wiegley Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 21 19:38:31 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ai4ik-00022s-Eo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:38:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59733 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ai4ij-0000AD-Rr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:38:29 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47042) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ai4iW-00009x-9R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:38:17 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ai4iQ-00044O-Gc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:38:16 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:33648) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ai4iQ-00044K-D9; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:38:10 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3049 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ai4iP-0002iv-MJ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:38:10 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from John Wiegley on Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:52:09 -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: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:202025 Archived-At: > From: John Wiegley > Cc: bozhidar@batsov.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:52:09 -0700 > > > What is the purpose of marking them as blocking the release if we don't > > really mean that? > > Marking a bug as blocking the release does not mean we won't release, because > this would put our release schedule in the hands of anyone capable of setting > such a mark. We can unset it as easily as someone can set it. And I don't think we should consider this possibility, since it's very unlikely to happen. The current marks are not done by someone as malicious as that. > What it does mean is: prior to cutting a release tarball, we will have > addressed each bug, where by "address" we mean: > > 1. Fix it, or > 2. Defer it to 25.2, or > 3. Re-categorize as not really blocking Fixing bugs might not be a 1-sec job, to say nothing of the need to test the fixed version in yet another pretest. So I wouldn't recommend delaying that till just before the release. > It sounds like several of our current "blockers" should not have been marked > such, so it looks like a bug review is in order. I'll put it on my schedule to > go through these and see which ones truly should not ship in 25.1. That's exactly my point: we should decide _today_ which one are truly blocking, and then make all the necessary effort, starting with tomorrow, to fix those which are.