[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why wasn't the 25.3 release based on the then-head of the emacs-25 b
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Why wasn't the 25.3 release based on the then-head of the emacs-25 branch? |
Date: |
Mon, 18 Sep 2017 20:48:26 +0300 |
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:10:21 -0700
>
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > it's naïve to assume
> > time frames of minutes for these activities, unless we want to give up
> > QA.
>
> It's routine to do the kind of QA that you mention in minutes for projects
> Emacs's size. We're not up to that now, but it's reasonable to make it a
> goal,
> if this sort of thing is important to us.
With the right organization and equipment available at suitable SLA,
sure. But we are very far from that point, IMO.
> At any rate the procedure could be streamlined considerably compared
> to what it was last time.
Indeed, working in that direction would be a good progress. I don't
think we need to get the time down to minutes, though, as that would
probably require measures that are impractical in our conditions.
> We could try having a better relationship with Debian and one or two others,
> so
> that the patches they consider to be security issues cause us to consider
> issuing new versions quickly. And we could be more proactive in sending our
> potential security patches to them early in our review process.
If someone could take that upon themselves, sure.
> > Are Debian and Fedora indeed enough? What about Red Hat?
>
> Fedora is Red Hat's early version, so we needn't worry about Red Hat
> separately.
>
> > What about Arch Linux?
>
> They wouldn't make my cut. Others of us might step up to be a liaison.
> openSUSE
> is also a plausible candidate for that.
What do others think about the set of distros we should use?
> > given the sample of distributions, how does one
> > figure out which ones of them include a given Emacs changeset, in
> > which versions of Emacs, and since what time.
>
> This info is all public now, at least for Debian and Red Hat.
OK, so it would be good to have the pointers in admin/ somewhere.
Thanks.
- Re: Why wasn't the 25.3 release based on the then-head of the emacs-25 branch?, (continued)
- Re: Why wasn't the 25.3 release based on the then-head of the emacs-25 branch?, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/09/16
- Re: Why wasn't the 25.3 release based on the then-head of the emacs-25 branch?, Paul Eggert, 2017/09/16
- Re: Why wasn't the 25.3 release based on the then-head of the emacs-25 branch?, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/09/16
- Re: Why wasn't the 25.3 release based on the then-head of the emacs-25 branch?, Paul Eggert, 2017/09/17
- Re: Why wasn't the 25.3 release based on the then-head of the emacs-25 branch?, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/09/17
- Re: Why wasn't the 25.3 release based on the then-head of the emacs-25 branch?, Paul Eggert, 2017/09/17
- Re: Why wasn't the 25.3 release based on the then-head of the emacs-25 branch?, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/09/17
- Re: Why wasn't the 25.3 release based on the then-head of the emacs-25 branch?, Paul Eggert, 2017/09/17
- Re: Why wasn't the 25.3 release based on the then-head of the emacs-25 branch?, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/09/18
- Re: Why wasn't the 25.3 release based on the then-head of the emacs-25 branch?, Paul Eggert, 2017/09/18
- Re: Why wasn't the 25.3 release based on the then-head of the emacs-25 branch?,
Eli Zaretskii <=