Re: Gnus branches and sync with Emacs

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:27:00 +0200 Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> wrote: 

>> Then the burden falls on Reiner or others to backport things into
>> the "for Emacs" branch when appropriate.

RS> The "burden" basically is on Miles, but it's more or less
RS> automatically.  Well, at least if every developer commits bugfixes to
RS> the bugfix-branch (which will be synced to the development branch) by
RS> Miles.

Actually the burden is now on the Gnus developers to backport their
changes to the bugfix Gnus branch in your scenario.  The actual followup
sync is up to Miles.  With CVS this is a bit of a pain (compared to SVN,
Git, etc.) so I hope we can move Gnus development off CVS soon.  Not
that I am complaining about backporting, it's not a lot of work, it's
just tedious.

>> This would bring the Gnus CVS trunk back to the "bleeding edge" status
>> it had in the past.

RS> The Gnus trunk also had long stabilizing periods (e.g. from 5.10.1 to
RS> 5.10.6).

Sure.  The online info, however, says:

http://www.gnus.org/distribution.html

"Please note that what you're getting is probably not even a
bleeding-edge Gnus, but a severly hemorrhaging one."

so I think stability is supposed to be an exception, at least when that
was written.  We should probably revise gnus.org anyhow, lots of the
information is outdated.

Ted