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: Why wasn't the 25.3 release based on the then-head of the emacs-25 branch? Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 21:59:36 +0300 Message-ID: <83y3pdi21z.fsf@gnu.org> 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> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1505674790 10634 195.159.176.226 (17 Sep 2017 18:59:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 18:59:50 +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 Sun Sep 17 20:59:45 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 1dtenA-0002Y5-Oi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 20:59:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33341 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dtenH-0006Pz-PZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 14:59:51 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34521) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dten7-0006Pg-KY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 14:59:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dten3-0000Hz-3C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 14:59:41 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:34131) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dten3-0000Hk-07; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 14:59:37 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3831 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1dten1-0003cw-GF; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 14:59:36 -0400 In-reply-to: <80bc870f-4ce0-bf34-a9ae-4cc50c796266@cs.ucla.edu> (message from Paul Eggert on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:40:45 -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:218421 Archived-At: > Cc: rgm@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Paul Eggert > Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:40:45 -0700 > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Having more people who can upload tarballs to the GNU site is one > > obvious improvement. > > I'll volunteer to do that, if nobody else wants to. I generally delegate this > task to others, in the other projects I contribute to, and would prefer that > here too. But if we're shorthanded, I'll step in. Thanks. > > it only accounts for one-day delay of the 25.3 release. > > 25.3 was decided on by Sat, 9 Sep 2017 10:48:13 +0300 (this is the timestamp on > private email from you). The release announcement was sent Mon, 11 Sep 2017 > 22:52:00 +0200. That's a delay of about 2.5 days to turn the crank. That time included the time to make the tarball and test it. The delay between the decision and when Nicolas started to work on the tarball was one day. > As I think I mentioned, I had offers via savannah-hackers to help review Emacs > security bug reports and proposed patches faster, and I'm inclined to take up > these offers. I don't think I understand what that means. How can people outside of the project be charged with reviewing our bugs and patches? How will that work in practice? And why wouldn't those people speak up here and work with us within our procedures? > > Debian testing is limited to Debian systems > > Sure, but the patches in question were portable and Debian testing is quite a > strong signal that they will work elsewhere. Obviously there is a judgment call > here (how do we know the patches are portable? we have to read them) but that's > OK. Going forward, we needn't come up with an elaborate bureaucracy here, nor do > we have the resources for that. No one was arguing for additional bureaucracy. What we need is data and procedures to make the decision quickly and without ado. And I don't think Debian alone should be the basis, we need to be able to quickly see which of our unreleased patches are backported by popular distributions, including, but not limited to Debian. > If we need another emergency patch for Emacs 25, > should we use the emacs-25-3 branch, or create a new branch > emacs-25-4? I don't think we can decide now, it will depend on the specific circumstances when (if) such issues arise. > I suggest that we keep using emacs-25-3 rather than creating a new > branch. That's definitely a possibility that should be one of the most favorable ones, if not the favorable. But it's impossible to make a decision until the specific details of the issue are known.