From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Rmail mbox-format branch Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:38:50 +0900 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <41406C46.6050505@pajato.com> <01c4969e$Blat.v2.2.2$d48c9a40@zahav.net.il> <20040909221947.GB11694@fencepost> <01c49717$Blat.v2.2.2$402ab840@zahav.net.il> Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1094809209 15630 80.91.224.253 (10 Sep 2004 09:40:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:40:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: pmr@pajato.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, storm@cua.dk Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 10 11:39:59 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1C5hst-0005O7-00 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:39:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C5hyF-0004XO-Pw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:45:31 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1C5hxi-0004NN-SW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:44:59 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1C5hxf-0004L6-04 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:44:58 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C5hxe-0004Kw-Sz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:44:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [202.32.8.202] (helo=tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C5hrx-0007W1-S4; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:39:02 -0400 Original-Received: from mailgate3.nec.co.jp (mailgate99.nec.co.jp [10.7.69.186]) by tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W01080315) with ESMTP id i8A9ct208837; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:38:55 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: (from root@localhost) by mailgate3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) id i8A9ctd15579; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:38:55 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from edtmg03.lsi.nec.co.jp ([10.26.16.203]) by mailsv3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILSV4-NEC) with ESMTP id i8A9crW29564; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:38:53 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mcsss2.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by edtmg03.lsi.nec.co.jp (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8A9cpgN020584; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:38:51 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mctpc71 (mctpc71.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp [10.30.118.121]) by mcsss2.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (8.12.10/8.12.8/EDcg v2.01-mc/1046780839) with ESMTP id i8A9cowt001637; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:38:50 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by mctpc71 (Postfix, from userid 31295) id 83537617; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:38:50 +0900 (JST) Original-To: Eli Zaretskii System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu Blat: Foop In-Reply-To: <01c49717$Blat.v2.2.2$402ab840@zahav.net.il> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:18:16 +0300") Original-Lines: 22 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: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:26951 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:26951 "Eli Zaretskii" writes: > Experience shows that 21.4 will most probably be followed by a bugfix > release 21.5, a month or two after 21.4 is out; if that happens, we > cannot move 22.1 into a pretest before the bugfix release is out. > Since we cannot know whether 21.4 will need a bugfix release, we will > wait at least a month or so before we decide, which again doesn't > allow 22.1 to start a pretest immediately. What's wrong with using a branch for bugfixes in 21.4? The point of keeping a pending release on the trunk is to make sure it gets a lot of testing. If 21.4 is released, then it's gonna be reasonably solid, so there seems little point to having it hang around on the trunk Just In Case; using a branch to fix those bugs that creep into the release (and which are deemed serious enough to warrant another minor release) seems quite reasonable. -Miles -- `...the Soviet Union was sliding in to an economic collapse so comprehensive that in the end its factories produced not goods but bads: finished products less valuable than the raw materials they were made from.' [The Economist]