[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Emacs Lisp's future

From: Mark H Weaver
Subject: Re: Emacs Lisp's future
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:39:24 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> 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.

Plenty of "new things" have been added to the stable-2.0 branch.
Just read the NEWS file for 2.0.


>> 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.

Yes, it's unusual, but whenever possible we add new modules and other
features to the stable-2.0 branch, so that users of 2.0 will benefit
from them.  The exceptions are:

* Work related to the new compiler/VM, which have changed substantially
  on the master branch.

* Disruptive changes that carry a significant risk of adding new bugs.

* Changes that would break API or ABI compatibility.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]