Re: emacs-29 e2ac0d416b9 1/5: ; Merge from origin/emacs-28

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 08:50:10 -0800
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >>     git diff 068b53500e24b7b..ad6c6a3a11569c4
> >
> > Why would we need to eyeball all those changes now?  It's a wasted
> > effort.  We never merge to the release branch, never.
> 
> I already eyeballed all of those changes

You could miss something or make a mistake, couldn't you?  It's
possible.

> $ git diff -b --stat 068b53500e24b7b..ad6c6a3a11569c4
>  ChangeLog.3 | 430 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  etc/AUTHORS |  24 +--
>  etc/HISTORY |   2 +
>  3 files changed, 443 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

That's not what I saw.  I saw many more changes brought be the merge.

And again, the changes to AUTHORS and ChangeLog.3 are not needed on
the emacs-29 branch, since those files are generated as part of
preparing the release.

> You left out the part of my message where I explained this, but a merge
> preserves history and tags.

We don't need to preserve history on the emacs-29 branch.  The history
and tags are preserved by the master branch, and when we cut a release
branch, it inherits that.  But merging an old release branch to a
newer release branch is pointless, as it doesn't preserve anything.
An old release branch is a dead end, and any changes on it are not
interesting, since they are at best no-ops.

> > It is simply unnecessary risk, and something we never do, for very
> > good reasons.  I'd sleep better if you'd reverted those changes on
> > emacs-29, and made the single change in HISTORY by hand.
> 
> The risk is minimal

Famous last words.

Why should we have _any_ risk at all?  There's no gain here,
absolutely none!  Risk with no gain makes no sense...