From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New Package for NonGNU-ELPA: clojure-ts-mode Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 13:02:19 +0000 Message-ID: <87r0njs6uc.fsf@localhost> References: <87il9kksqz.fsf@dfreeman.email> <835y51kslv.fsf@gnu.org> <7a82c524-1aa1-e755-e377-673ebb107a44@gutov.dev> <83r0nok8s4.fsf@gnu.org> <87il90znco.fsf@yahoo.com> <1977fbef-307b-bcf4-9448-64f26916dd65@gutov.dev> <87edjozlqq.fsf@yahoo.com> <43ddad10-49dd-1c49-ebfe-51689780b315@gutov.dev> <83jztgk410.fsf@gnu.org> <83edjojx8c.fsf@gnu.org> <8734zzv7vk.fsf@localhost> <83edjjecmx.fsf@gnu.org> <87wmxbtsd4.fsf@localhost> <83bkeneb8j.fsf@gnu.org> <87ledrtqzx.fsf@localhost> <87a5u7sal0.fsf@yahoo.com> <87bkento99.fsf@localhost> <871qfjs855.fsf@yahoo.com> <87wmxbs7a1.fsf@localhost> <87wmxbqsl0.fsf@yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="26637"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , stefankangas@gmail.com, dmitry@gutov.dev, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Po Lu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 31 15:08:11 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qbhP9-0006fe-Kk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 15:08:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qbhLc-0008Dz-GF; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 09:04:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qbhJ1-0003NL-H8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 09:01:51 -0400 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qbhIy-00079O-0M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 09:01:51 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A811240027 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 15:01:46 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1693486906; bh=EMoiuejRKO3Q6fQyfqGf73lwOX9tmujNkFlXhAYRQew=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:From; b=Mty/PSNV6/qj9QflLt+naRzdOM3i4ZjNd06DqkmLR1Q41UvHKG+yfu1j0RAoa8FrL KkZlAGnG46nl/y3sHCbamtSTugLSa6cKEBTTBbAUy3p8p/q6hSrZjKFiayAWBFLLME 3Zj1eFS8Dsb77m1+eXW64YmhQehkAtOMOVXjdWyxtXvlC25UWt1By38wlF53LlO1l0 fwxyRXXJ7V3OikjawD1+i68n9R1MBHj+2XiV42FrXO7qn6tKi3iX6QtYLyjJC2Om4y B1YxsBnSEiNnbmIT0a6AJA1+nzQNmMwhE07LnH7CyCw7wAkw/jWOxHxxSez8ccUBnQ 9a0IqXUufxxSQ== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Rc1Ws4PzDz9rxK; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 15:01:45 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87wmxbqsl0.fsf@yahoo.com> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:309648 Archived-At: Po Lu writes: >> These tarballs will be mostly the same, as they will only differ by >> bugfixes. So, testing different "bugfix" tarball versions will only >> risk differing via some bugs being already fixed in newer >> versions. The >> worst-case scenario is when some bugfix introduces another bug, but >> AFAIK it is already ensured that such things almost never happen. >> >> So, I do not think that having multiple bugfix versions around will pose >> a significant problem. > > I would wait until the reports for already fixed bugs start rolling in > before making such a brazen assertion. May you elaborate how bug duplicates (if I understand you correctly) may be a larger problem for the proposed bugfix releases compared to the current minor-release-only model? -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at