From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Reordering etc/NEWS Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:14:20 +0200 Message-ID: References: <2wmz0iriyj.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1178806482 10986 80.91.229.12 (10 May 2007 14:14:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:14:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu May 10 16:14:29 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Hm9PZ-0007N5-21 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 16:14:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hm9Ws-0007LF-8C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 10:22:02 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Hm9Wp-0007LA-7b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 10:21:59 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Hm9Wm-0007Gh-OL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 10:21:57 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hm9Wm-0007GC-HP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 10:21:56 -0400 Original-Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.239]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Hm9PS-0005jO-D4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 10:14:22 -0400 Original-Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id s17so561944wxc for ; Thu, 10 May 2007 07:14:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=fYTCk7n50A0103eGNbV6ofjzgtNl04WFIjCJBMYwTC6epYZHfOh7Se7T+DqSuFIVz2RJonmCs5KpFrj6rxCjktFJNwshmZaMWWYY7VOnzViytUasWwVVvWbpjk8IOSDSFFlo643Zg015mAhaeiRChygcMbiDQ9l79AhxzoFSlkY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=mo8rpKQd18jTeW6yAjAuvkvBuKj0o3Ootqw3KrsSgJYPleIUviK7ro3kkJQjQKhroA/vNx+3L3HJ38Svsop3QyG1TPuZc7d0bdAPiCXIdt1HxryB4d4eur6YFkWuPRrUcBHbd7igJapVhgLD2oRj36CA/kiK6kmP0zJ5N94XPLI= Original-Received: by 10.90.98.3 with SMTP id v3mr1572745agb.1178806460960; Thu, 10 May 2007 07:14:20 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.90.103.8 with HTTP; Thu, 10 May 2007 07:14:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 (Google crawlbot) 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: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:70763 Archived-At: On 5/10/07, Richard Stallman wrote: > However, I won't accept the sheer numbers > of people who disagree with me as proof that I'm mistaken. On the issue of software release procedures, what would you take as proof that the one we're using (or were using until yesterday, when you "opened" the trunk) is failed? (Honest question, no sarcasm or badgering.) I ask because I fully agree with you that one person can be right against a hundred, but OTOH software management is not exactly a new field; there is a considerable know-how, both in this list and in the software engineering world at large. If you're not accepting the arguments of very knowledgeable people here on the list, I'm curious about your reasons. > And please don't make a big deal about whether it > will take another week, or even another few weeks, to make the > release. Agreed 100%. After five years of development, a week or a month is irrelevant (at least, once the trunk is open and non-release-related development can start again). Juanma