From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Fogel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs 23.2 pretest freeze? Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:05:59 -0600 Message-ID: <87bpijaa08.fsf@canonical.com> References: <87einfbxdw.fsf@red-bean.com> <87y6lnk4rp.fsf@stupidchicken.com> Reply-To: Karl Fogel NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1259622384 14308 80.91.229.12 (30 Nov 2009 23:06:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:06:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "emacs-devel@gnu.org" To: Chong Yidong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 01 00:06:16 2009 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 1NFFJw-0001kV-HF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:06:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33527 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NFFJw-0002OS-Bi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:06:16 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NFFJq-0002Ms-P5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:06:10 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NFFJn-0002Jq-Ro for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:06:09 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56359 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NFFJn-0002Jk-On for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:06:07 -0500 Original-Received: from adelie.canonical.com ([91.189.90.139]:60179) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NFFJn-0006R8-9v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:06:07 -0500 Original-Received: from hutte.canonical.com ([91.189.90.181]) by adelie.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 #1 (Debian)) id 1NFFJm-00075Y-D9; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:06:06 +0000 Original-Received: from 173-109-241-128.pools.spcsdns.net ([173.109.241.128] helo=kfogel-work) by hutte.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NFFJl-0001Mw-Ve; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:06:06 +0000 In-Reply-To: <87y6lnk4rp.fsf@stupidchicken.com> (Chong Yidong's message of "Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:48:58 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:118010 Archived-At: Chong Yidong writes: > We're mostly waiting for Alan's code to land now. Hopefully in a week > or so. Thanks. > That said, I'm still uneasy about the status of message-mode as default; > I'm not sure we've done enough to smooth the transition from mail-mode > as default. I don't know the details of the transition. All I can say is I heartily support message-mode as default, as it's awesome :-). Since the freeze doesn't apply to documentation changes, if what you're worried about can mostly be addressed by doc improvements, then message-mode isn't an issue as far as the pretest goes anyway, right? > (One more thing: sometime after the feature freeze and the start of the > pretest, I will add one additional piece of code: the Python parser for > Semantic. We're currently waiting for the paperwork. This is an > extremely self-contained part of Semantic, so it should not impact the > pretest.) *nod* One nice thing about working with Bazaar will be that paperwork delays will have less impact on development, because it'll be easier for any developer to try out a branch containing the not-yet-approved changes. (Whereas in CVS, the "apply a patch and revert it later" process is a bit awkward -- a shallow but still noticeable gumption sink.) -Karl