From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Why wasn't the 25.3 release based on the then-head of the emacs-25 branch? Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 15:44:36 -0700 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: References: <83ingkmqed.fsf@gnu.org> <52377n1qhv.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83mv5vktlj.fsf@gnu.org> <83ingijbmo.fsf@gnu.org> <18aea83f-80ea-756e-106a-1d27eb5fc38e@cs.ucla.edu> <83fubljtiq.fsf@gnu.org> <80bc870f-4ce0-bf34-a9ae-4cc50c796266@cs.ucla.edu> <83y3pdi21z.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1505688325 29597 195.159.176.226 (17 Sep 2017 22:45:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 22:45:25 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 Cc: rgm@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Sep 18 00:44:53 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dtiJ0-0006hu-FF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 00:44:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33881 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dtiJ6-0003xZ-5F for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 18:44:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60745) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dtiIv-0003x7-9f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 18:44:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dtiIu-00017y-CS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 18:44:45 -0400 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:55712) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dtiIo-00015s-S9; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 18:44:38 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AACE5160D13; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 15:44:37 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id yDkjt9BpkcZz; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 15:44:36 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C423E160D33; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 15:44:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id V643RlYK9iHO; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 15:44:36 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.9] (unknown [47.154.18.85]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F823160CE8; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 15:44:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83y3pdi21z.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Language: en-US X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 131.179.128.68 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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 Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:218439 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii wrote: > That time included the time to make the tarball and test it. If making the tarball and testing it takes 1.5 days, then that was 20% of= the=20 overall delay last time, and there is good opportunity for speeding up th= e=20 process. Such a process should take minutes, not hours. > How can people outside of > the project be charged with reviewing our bugs and patches? These are people quite knowledgeable about security and software maintena= nce.=20 They can be a good source for security reviews. It's another set of eyes,= with=20 an outside perspective, and that is helpful. > why wouldn't those people speak up here > and work with us within our procedures? They're busy. Also, we haven't exactly been soliciting or welcoming their= input.=20 The most recent emergency release had a bit of an NIH feel about it. > No one was arguing for additional bureaucracy. What we need is data > and procedures Whatever it's called it's more work, and we lack the resources to do it. = Maybe=20 we can look at two disparate releases (Debian and Fedora, say). Above tha= t there=20 are diminishing returns. Outside reviewers could help here (some are Fedo= ra=20 experts).