[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs Lisp's future
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs Lisp's future |
Date: |
Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:03:02 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) |
address@hidden writes:
> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> That's not all that much manpower. If you take a look at the commits in
>> the master branch that are not merges from the stable branch, I think
>> that more than 90% are from Andy Wingo.
>
> That's an interesting way to pretend that Ludovic and I don't exist, by
> excluding merges.
Work on the stable branch is supposedly maintenance rather than
forward-looking development.
It's actually a good sign for a project's stability if more people work
on maintenance than on new things. But I was commenting on the amount
of manpower getting work done on new things.
> Why should our contributions be excluded just because they start out
> on the stable-2.0 branch and later flow to master by way of merges?
Would you claim that the stable-2.0 branch is where new developments are
generally done? That would seem like a somewhat unusual development
model.
--
David Kastrup
- Emacs Lisp's future (was: Guile emacs thread (again)), (continued)
- Emacs Lisp's future (was: Guile emacs thread (again)), Stefan Monnier, 2014/09/16
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future (was: Guile emacs thread (again)), Lennart Borgman, 2014/09/16
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future (was: Guile emacs thread (again)), Eli Zaretskii, 2014/09/16
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future (was: Guile emacs thread (again)), Lars Brinkhoff, 2014/09/16
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/09/16
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, mhw, 2014/09/17
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Mark H Weaver, 2014/09/17
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/09/17
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 2014/09/17
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Phillip Lord, 2014/09/17