[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs 27.1 released
From: |
Mattias Engdegård |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs 27.1 released |
Date: |
Sun, 16 Aug 2020 10:19:06 +0200 |
14 aug. 2020 kl. 15.28 skrev Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>:
> I actually didn't consider the code at all in this case, I tried to
> approach the issue from the POV of risk management.
I understand what you mean, but it is not very different from what a maintainer
fixing a bug does; assessing consequences and risks is part of the job.
> What bothers me is the risk of having the fix uncover as yet unknown
> problems in the callers of the function that was fixed. Do you have
> any thoughts about that? For example, if the callers are already
> broken when the fixed function misbehaved (are they?), that would be a
> strong argument to cherry-pick the changes, because they cannot
> possibly break what is already broken.
Well, there is no indication that callers of calcFunc-gcd are of particularly
low quality. Solid tests would have helped, of course: were Calc written today
we would have insisted on a very different degree of test coverage, but that
was not the standard coding practice at the time. Without spending the time to
build a full test suite for the considerable amount of functionality of Calc,
the best we can do is to fix bugs using careful analysis and good habits and
add well-targeted tests for the flaw and nearby code without succumbing to
exponential explosion. We then sit back and wait until we believe time has
tested it.
On the other hand, Calc is fairly easy to validate in the respect that it's
often just a matter of doing what is mathematically correct and things will
sort themselves out. Anything going wrong after fixing one part was therefore
almost by definition already broken. It was not quite what you meant, but
perhaps it gives a partial answer to your question.
That said, none of the bug fixes mentioned were of high importance. The way
Emacs development works, it's likely better to encourage users to build and use
Emacs master rather than back-porting anything to a stable branch.
- Re: Emacs 27.1 released, (continued)
- Re: Emacs 27.1 released, Robert Pluim, 2020/08/12
- Re: Emacs 27.1 released, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/08/12
- Re: Emacs 27.1 released, Mattias Engdegård, 2020/08/12
- Re: Emacs 27.1 released, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/08/12
- Re: Emacs 27.1 released, Mattias Engdegård, 2020/08/12
- Re: Emacs 27.1 released, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/08/12
- Re: Emacs 27.1 released, Mattias Engdegård, 2020/08/13
- Re: Emacs 27.1 released, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/08/14
- Re: Emacs 27.1 released, Mattias Engdegård, 2020/08/14
- Re: Emacs 27.1 released, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/08/14
- Re: Emacs 27.1 released,
Mattias Engdegård <=
- Re: Emacs 27.1 released, Michael Albinus, 2020/08/13
Re: Emacs 27.1 released, phillip . lord, 2020/08/12
- Emacs 27.1 Windows Binaries -- testing wanted, phillip . lord, 2020/08/15
- Re: Emacs 27.1 Windows Binaries -- testing wanted, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/08/15
- Re: Emacs 27.1 Windows Binaries -- testing wanted, Stephen Leake, 2020/08/15
- Re: Emacs 27.1 Windows Binaries -- testing wanted, Alan Third, 2020/08/15
- Re: Emacs 27.1 Windows Binaries -- testing wanted, Sivaram Neelakantan, 2020/08/17
- Re:Emacs 27.1 Windows Binaries -- testing wanted, 范凯, 2020/08/17
- Re: Emacs 27.1 Windows Binaries -- testing wanted, Tak Kunihiro, 2020/08/17