[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
New sync'd branch
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
New sync'd branch |
Date: |
Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:21:03 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) |
We'd like to have a new release in the first half of next year with some
new features. Given the short time, the new features need to be
non-intrusive, like new packages.
Until now, we've had 2 active branches: the EMACS_23_1 and the trunk,
where the first is limited to bugfixes (and mostly unused, really), and
the second is aiming to become the next release.
But two things make me think we should change this arrangement:
1- the desire and need to plan for Emacs-24: if we want to keep
releasing regularly, we need to have 2 active branches, one for
short-term localized improvements, and the other for longer
term changes.
2- the fact that Emacs-23.1 seems not to suffer from any serious
problems that would call for a quick new release from the
EMACS_23_1 branch.
So I believe we should create a new branch EMACS_23 which will play the
role currently played by the trunk, so the trunk can now be open to more
experimental development (bidi, cpp->autoconf conversion, lexbind, ...),
targetted for Emacs-24.
There are some problem with this:
- Changes on the 23 branch need to be sync'd to the trunk. As long as
we haven't switched to Bzr, that means we need Miles to do the sync
for us. Miles, could you do that?
- People installing changes need to carefully choose whether to install
it on the 23 branch (from where it will be sync'd to the "24 branch"
aka "trunk"), or on the trunk. Basically, the most important aspect
is that any bugfix which makes sense on the 23 branch need to be
installed on the 23 branch rather than on the trunk.
- The 23 branch will not see as much testing any more. So we need to be
more conservative on what can go there. And we need to make
a conscious effort to try and use the 23 branch on a regular basis.
Maybe if the trunk is sufficiently unstable, this will not be
too problematic.
What do you all think about this?
Stefan
- New sync'd branch,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: New sync'd branch, joakim, 2009/08/23
- Re: New sync'd branch, Dmitry Dzhus, 2009/08/24
- Re: New sync'd branch, Stefan Monnier, 2009/08/25
- Re: New sync'd branch, Miles Bader, 2009/08/26
- Re: New sync'd branch, Stefan Monnier, 2009/08/26
- Re: New sync'd branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/08/26
- Re: New sync'd branch, Miles Bader, 2009/08/27
- Re: New sync'd branch, Teemu Likonen, 2009/08/27
- Re: New sync'd branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/08/28