Re: emacs-29 82d6bb66fea 4/5: Update HISTORY and ChangeLog.4

Re: emacs-29 82d6bb66fea 4/5: Update HISTORY and ChangeLog.4

[Michael Albinus]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

Hi Eli,

> diff --git a/etc/HISTORY b/etc/HISTORY
> index 8b80473e321..d60397ab3cb 100644
> --- a/etc/HISTORY
> +++ b/etc/HISTORY
> @@ -230,6 +230,8 @@ GNU Emacs 28.2 (2022-09-12) emacs-28.2
>
>  GNU Emacs 28.3 (2023-02-17) emacs-28.3

Emacs 28.3 has never been released. There's no tarball on ftp.gnu.org,
and in git we have only the tag emacs-28.3-rc1.

Best regards, Michael.

Re: emacs-29 82d6bb66fea 4/5: Update HISTORY and ChangeLog.4

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 12:52:55 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> Hi Eli,
> 
> > diff --git a/etc/HISTORY b/etc/HISTORY
> > index 8b80473e321..d60397ab3cb 100644
> > --- a/etc/HISTORY
> > +++ b/etc/HISTORY
> > @@ -230,6 +230,8 @@ GNU Emacs 28.2 (2022-09-12) emacs-28.2
> >
> >  GNU Emacs 28.3 (2023-02-17) emacs-28.3
> 
> Emacs 28.3 has never been released. There's no tarball on ftp.gnu.org,
> and in git we have only the tag emacs-28.3-rc1.

Thanks, but this change was installed by Stefan Kangas in February, so
it's too bad it is only now brought to attention.

I think I will let it stay, as for now this is effectively part of our
history, whether we want that or not.

Re: emacs-29 82d6bb66fea 4/5: Update HISTORY and ChangeLog.4

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> >  GNU Emacs 28.3 (2023-02-17) emacs-28.3
>> 
>> Emacs 28.3 has never been released. There's no tarball on ftp.gnu.org,
>> and in git we have only the tag emacs-28.3-rc1.

> Thanks, but this change was installed by Stefan Kangas in February, so
> it's too bad it is only now brought to attention.

> I think I will let it stay, as for now this is effectively part of our
> history, whether we want that or not.

Could the entry at least be changed to emacs-28.3-rc1? Mentioning a
release that never happened is highly misleading.

Re: emacs-29 82d6bb66fea 4/5: Update HISTORY and ChangeLog.4

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>
> Cc: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 14:34:21 +0200
> 
> >>>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> >> >  GNU Emacs 28.3 (2023-02-17) emacs-28.3
> >> 
> >> Emacs 28.3 has never been released. There's no tarball on ftp.gnu.org,
> >> and in git we have only the tag emacs-28.3-rc1.
> 
> > Thanks, but this change was installed by Stefan Kangas in February, so
> > it's too bad it is only now brought to attention.
> 
> > I think I will let it stay, as for now this is effectively part of our
> > history, whether we want that or not.
> 
> Could the entry at least be changed to emacs-28.3-rc1? Mentioning a
> release that never happened is highly misleading.

We have been mentioning that for the last 6 months, including in 3
pretest tarballs.

Re: emacs-29 82d6bb66fea 4/5: Update HISTORY and ChangeLog.4

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>
>> Cc: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 14:34:21 +0200
>> 
>> >>>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> 
>> >> >  GNU Emacs 28.3 (2023-02-17) emacs-28.3
>> >> 
>> >> Emacs 28.3 has never been released. There's no tarball on ftp.gnu.org,
>> >> and in git we have only the tag emacs-28.3-rc1.
>> 
>> > Thanks, but this change was installed by Stefan Kangas in February, so
>> > it's too bad it is only now brought to attention.
>> 
>> > I think I will let it stay, as for now this is effectively part of our
>> > history, whether we want that or not.
>> 
>> Could the entry at least be changed to emacs-28.3-rc1? Mentioning a
>> release that never happened is highly misleading.

> We have been mentioning that for the last 6 months, including in 3
> pretest tarballs.

I don't see how this would make it correct.

IMHO the entry should either be dropped, or changed to 28.3-rc1. In the
latter case, maybe it should also include a short explanation like
"Emacs 28.3 was not released because of ${REASON}."

Re: emacs-29 82d6bb66fea 4/5: Update HISTORY and ChangeLog.4

[Po Lu]

Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> writes:

> IMHO the entry should either be dropped, or changed to 28.3-rc1. In the
> latter case, maybe it should also include a short explanation like
> "Emacs 28.3 was not released because of ${REASON}."

I think the wording should avoid discounting the possibility of Emacs
28.3 actually being released some time in the future.

Re: emacs-29 82d6bb66fea 4/5: Update HISTORY and ChangeLog.4

[Michael Albinus]

Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:

Hi,

>> IMHO the entry should either be dropped, or changed to 28.3-rc1. In the
>> latter case, maybe it should also include a short explanation like
>> "Emacs 28.3 was not released because of ${REASON}."
>
> I think the wording should avoid discounting the possibility of Emacs
> 28.3 actually being released some time in the future.

I doubt there will be a 28.3 release once 29.1 is out.

Best regards, Michael.

Re: emacs-29 82d6bb66fea 4/5: Update HISTORY and ChangeLog.4

[Michael Albinus]

Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> writes:

Hi Ulrich,

>>> Could the entry at least be changed to emacs-28.3-rc1? Mentioning a
>>> release that never happened is highly misleading.
>
>> We have been mentioning that for the last 6 months, including in 3
>> pretest tarballs.
>
> I don't see how this would make it correct.
>
> IMHO the entry should either be dropped, or changed to 28.3-rc1.

I understand Eli's point. If everything goes well, all files tagged as
emacs-29.1-rc1 will be tagged emacs-29.1 in a few days, and that's the
release. And it isn't that bad as it looks. People reading the HISTORY
file see entries for Emacs 28.3 and 29.1. Chances are good they decide
for the latter.1.

What about this compromise: we change HISTORY in the emacs-29 branch. If
there is a need for an RC2, this change will be part of it. Otherwise,
it will appear with Emacs 29.2.

> In the latter case, maybe it should also include a short explanation
> like "Emacs 28.3 was not released because of ${REASON}."

I don't know any good wording for ${REASON}, so we shouldn't add a
reason.

Best regards, Michael.

Re: emacs-29 82d6bb66fea 4/5: Update HISTORY and ChangeLog.4

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:46:46 +0200
> 
> What about this compromise: we change HISTORY in the emacs-29 branch. If
> there is a need for an RC2, this change will be part of it. Otherwise,
> it will appear with Emacs 29.2.

I already changed it.  I have no energy left for these meaningless
arguments.

I just cannot stop wondering why people keep arguing about these
minor, almost meaningless issues after their opinions were heard and
disagreed upon.  Just accept the decision and move on.  But nooo....

So now I will have to regenerate a tarball instead of reusing the same
one.  Another hour of my time.  No one cares but me, I know.  What
matters is that they got what they wanted.

Re: emacs-29 82d6bb66fea 4/5: Update HISTORY and ChangeLog.4

[Michael Albinus]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

Hi Eli,

>> What about this compromise: we change HISTORY in the emacs-29 branch. If
>> there is a need for an RC2, this change will be part of it. Otherwise,
>> it will appear with Emacs 29.2.
>
> I already changed it.  I have no energy left for these meaningless
> arguments.
>
> I just cannot stop wondering why people keep arguing about these
> minor, almost meaningless issues after their opinions were heard and
> disagreed upon.  Just accept the decision and move on.  But nooo....
>
> So now I will have to regenerate a tarball instead of reusing the same
> one.  Another hour of my time.  No one cares but me, I know.  What
> matters is that they got what they wanted.

From my POV there's no need to regenerate the tarball.

Best regards, Michael.

Re: emacs-29 82d6bb66fea 4/5: Update HISTORY and ChangeLog.4

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023, Michael Albinus wrote:

> What about this compromise: we change HISTORY in the emacs-29 branch. If
> there is a need for an RC2, this change will be part of it. Otherwise,
> it will appear with Emacs 29.2.

Sure, no need to cut a new tarball if this remains the only change.

>> In the latter case, maybe it should also include a short explanation
>> like "Emacs 28.3 was not released because of ${REASON}."

> I don't know any good wording for ${REASON}, so we shouldn't add a
> reason.

Looks like it simply didn't happen because nobody was enough interested.
From my distro point of view, there was no strong incentive because we
had already fixed these minor security bugs with downstream patches.