From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Guerry Subject: Re: [DEV] Bump Emacs requirement to 24.4? Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:13:24 +0200 Message-ID: <87si7jirbv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87io8tfrtk.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87vbctieu3.fsf@gmx.us> <20150806074217.00177cc9@zotac> <87lhdohmii.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87bnekrfgi.fsf@gmx.us> <874mk15862.fsf@gnu.org> <87pp2povpl.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87y4hddl2y.fsf@free.fr> <87a8tsq4d9.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87zj1sk4uf.fsf@free.fr> <871tf4pbzr.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <878u9cjfjn.fsf@free.fr> <87twrzkbow.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37383) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZQt4Y-0006TJ-Pi for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 04:13:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZQt4V-0000no-K0 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 04:13:42 -0400 Received: from so1.mailgun.net ([198.61.254.11]:35466) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZQt4V-0000l6-CQ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 04:13:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87twrzkbow.fsf@Rainer.invalid> (Achim Gratz's message of "Sun, 16 Aug 2015 08:08:15 +0200") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Achim Gratz Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Achim, Achim Gratz writes: > Since it already > has happened and the general consensus seems to be that we should go > there eventually, just maybe not right now, I don't see why we suddenly > also need to re-define what master is about. The redefinition already happened (i.e. the master branch is about Org+Emacs 24.3+) and it happened before we could reach a consensus about it, or simply take the time to really discuss it as we need. I'm trying to find the best conditions to move forward here. If the repository is in a state that pushes us toward one decision, these are not the best conditions IMO. So if we revert the changes, that's fine. If not, that's fine too, but we will have to decide things as if the commits where not done. -- Bastien