Re: emacs 21.2

[Miles Bader]

"Marshall, Simon" <address@hidden> writes:
> I spent a large amount of my own time tracking down problems with the
> last pretest & coming up with some fixes & testing others'.  I did it
> because I thought it would be worth it: I thought the next Emacs
> release would fix those problems.  Why would I bother if fixes
> wouldn't appear in the next release?

If a pretest doesn't fix bug-that-annoys-you-X, which you know is fixed
in CVS, then it seems perfectly fair to bring that up as an issue with
the pretest -- as was stated earlier, many things don't get put into the
release branch simply because no one thought too, not necessarily
because they were dangerous.

On the other hand, a traditional pretest is too late for many kinds of
changes, so I wonder if it would be a good idea to officialy have two
stages in the pretest:

   (stage 1)  Did everything important get fixed?
   (stage 2)  [a more normal `no big changes' pretest]

-Miles
-- 
Suburbia: where they tear out the trees and then name streets after them.