From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Proposal for a 22.2/trunk development model Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:37:43 +0200 Message-ID: <85odjgm0co.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <6sps3z32ap.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87tztbcue9.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87lkemmrg4.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <18033.64249.816850.550250@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200706161422.l5GEMTJ5009556@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1182004705 32068 80.91.229.12 (16 Jun 2007 14:38:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:38:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rgm@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, handa@m17n.org, Nick Roberts , emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, cyd@stupidchicken.com To: Dan Nicolaescu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 16 16:38:23 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HzZPz-0002iJ-5W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:38:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HzZPy-000109-Mi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:38:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HzZPt-0000vF-LI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:38:17 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HzZPt-0000ub-10 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:38:17 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HzZPs-0000tz-MK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:38:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-09.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.49]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HzZPq-0004Vt-9W; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:38:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-03-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-03-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.15]) by mail-in-09.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A482B302BBE; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:38:12 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mail-in-10.arcor-online.net (mail-in-10.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.50]) by mail-in-03-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C13E2D3B47; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:38:12 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (dslb-084-061-025-018.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.61.25.18]) by mail-in-10.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C760E2351A1; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:38:11 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 0C41F1D0340C; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:37:43 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <200706161422.l5GEMTJ5009556@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> (Dan Nicolaescu's message of "Sat\, 16 Jun 2007 07\:22\:24 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 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: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:73072 Archived-At: Dan Nicolaescu writes: > Richard Stallman writes: > > > I have decided that we should not merge unicode-2 until a couple > > of months have gone by and we know what should be done about > > Emacs 22.2. Until then I want to avoid far-reaching changes in > > the trunk. Please stop making a fuss about a couple of months. > > > > However, it is ok to add new features which are not so > > far-reaching in their effects on the code. Even the multi-tty > > branch could be merged in (once we decide what to do about the > > environment). > > This development model would undoubtedly achieve the goal of being > able to make a high quality 22.2 release. Undoubtedly? Richard is talking about the trunk, you are talking about 22.2 which is to be done off EMACS_22_BASE. So I don't see the two areas actually related, _unless_ one plans to _scrap_ EMACS_22_BASE and basically copy trunk over it. Which nobody has proposed, and which I'd consider an even worse idea than quite a few others I have blown my top over. > Here is a proposal that would still achieve the same goal, with the > added advantage that it would get us closer to a future 23.1 release > at a higher speed: > * ask for 2-3 (or more) volunteers that would: > - backport all the changes that you'd consider important from > trunk to the 22.x branch > - develop fixes for bugs that only occur on the 22.x branch > - analyze the reported 22.1 bugs and fix them or ask for help to > fix them I think that analyzing and fixing reported bugs should remain the responsibility of every developer: we don't want to have something as important as that go through the 22.x bottleneck. > - ask you to stop all development on the trunk until some critical > bug is fixed on the branch. Huh? Care for an example, hypothetical if you like? > * open the trunk for any new development > Now, during the summer, is a very good time to allow for more > development to happen: a lot of people have more free time, we'd > want them to use that time for emacs as much as possible. The trunk _has_ been formally opened for new development. It is just several people have dissenting ideas about what this does and what it should mean. > Do you find such a plan acceptable? IMHO a plan like this would > satisfy the people that ask for more development on the trunk. In the end, it does not matter what words we put into a plan. It only counts what we will be doing. > PS: In order to reduce the number of messages on the list, please > allow RMS to reply to this and agree/disagree with the principle of > this before posting alternate better plans or improvements to this > one. Richard already _did_ declare the trunk open for new development. Getting him to agree again seems pretty pointless: in the abstract, we already _have_ consensus. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum