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: Move to a cadence release model? Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:48:39 +0200 Message-ID: <83ziykk04o.fsf@gnu.org> References: Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1447257174 17545 80.91.229.3 (11 Nov 2015 15:52:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:52:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: john@yates-sheets.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Xue Fuqiao Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 11 16:52:42 2015 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 1ZwXhQ-0008Kf-IO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:52:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41381 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwXhP-0001y2-Va for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:52:39 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54083) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwXfV-0001t7-7A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:52:26 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwXdb-00025M-1U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:50:41 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout29.012.net.il ([80.179.55.185]:42774) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwXda-00025F-QY; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:48:42 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout29.012.net.il by mtaout29.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NXN00700QHICV00@mtaout29.012.net.il>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:48:01 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.94.185.246]) by mtaout29.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NXN004DSQK11Z30@mtaout29.012.net.il>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:48:01 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.185 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:194076 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:50:14 +0800 > From: Xue Fuqiao > Cc: Emacs-devel , John Yates > > Some examples of this model are Linux (a new release every few months, > although there is a separate set of "stable" branches), Firefox (a new > release every six weeks), Chromium (roughly the same as Firefox), and > LibreOffice (six monthly releases). I think we can only have useful discussions of those other models if they are not just mentioned, but described in some detail. Relevant details IMO include the number of active developers, the number of gatekeepers and/or people actively involved in the patch review process, some statistics about the commit rate, etc. Only armed with those details can we reason whether any of those models are applicable to Emacs, and what would be the prerequisites of each model. E.g., people talk about reviewing patches, pull requests, gerrit, etc., but we don't even _have_ a patch review process per se.