Re: address@hidden: Re: Possible help with stable Emacs releases.]

[Jérôme Marant]

Selon Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>:

> > Why would we necessarily have to go through this pretest phase the
> > way it is currently done for major releases?
>
> I don't understand the question; are you saying that bugfix releases
> don't need to go through a pretest phase?  I wasn't aware something
> like that was being proposed in these discussions.

Me neither. I've never said there wouldn't be any pretest phase.
I'm saying that pretesting a bugfix release is different from
pretesting a major release; it is shorter at least.
I'll also in favour of test cases we can replay every time we
add new patches. Since emacs is able to run in batch, there is
no reason no to do so.

> > You look worried about being involved in such releases, but we
> > are proposing to be delegated to perform such a job
>
> Unless we will agree to release bugfix versions without pretesting
> them, I don't think you will be able to perform that job on your own.

I've never intended to avoid pretesting bugfix releases.
We are doing the same job on the Debian side and we never release
patches in hurry.

> A pretest needs to be done on several platforms, for starters.  Also,
> at least in the past, some of the changes checked in to the release
> branch were non-trivial enough to warrant significant testing.

Patches are usually tested in the trunk first at least. We can
delay their application to the bugfix branch while they are being
tested.

> Changing all that would mean a serious surgery of the current
> development procedures.  I'm not necessarily opposed to such changes,
> but I'd say that a change in version numbering is dwarfed by the
> seriousness of issues we need to discuss and agree before such a
> surgery could take place.

Isn't what we are doing currently?

--
Jérôme