Re: Next release from master

[Paul Eggert]

On 01/21/2016 05:28 PM, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
> Why not get back to the simpler scheme?

I also don't see the need for three common development branches. Emacs 
developers are already spread pretty thin with two.

I know of a GNU project that has three such branches: Automake. The 
branches are called 'master', 'minor', and 'micro', and have roughly the 
three roles that John suggested. My own impression is that the extra 
complexity of the three branches discouraged contributors ("which branch 
should this patch go into?", that sort of thing).

Automake development is currently moribund.