[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#21422: 25.0.50; apropos-library on libraries using cl-def{generic,me
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#21422: 25.0.50; apropos-library on libraries using cl-def{generic,method} fails |
Date: |
Fri, 08 Jan 2016 11:36:40 +0200 |
> From: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
> Cc: Mark Oteiza <mvoteiza@udel.edu>, 21422@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 20:27:57 -0500
>
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> >> cl-generic is used pretty widely, and apropos-library fails on libraries
> >> using it. Could this be marked to be fixed before release?
> >
> > IMO, we should only do that if it's practical, i.e. if there's someone
> > who would work on fixing that.
>
> I don't think that's the right approach.
>
> One purpose of marking things as release blockers is to encourage
> people to work on them.
Sure, provided that there's someone who can be encouraged. Otherwise,
it's futile, isn't it?
But I didn't write what you cite above as a general proposal. I wrote
that specifically about this kind of bugs: I find it hard to believe
that we would consider such bugs critical, i.e. something with which
it would be unthinkable to release Emacs. You need to read what I
wrote keeping this in mind, and without generalizing it to any other
kind of bugs, particularly those that are really critical ones.
> > I'd also suggest to have bug#22294 be the release blocker, [...]
>
> You don't need to suggest it, please just do it.
If #21422 is marked as a blocker, I will do the same for #22294. They
are in the same boat: extremely inconvenient, but not really critical.
> It would be great if the list of blocking bugs became something other
> than just my own opinion.
It stopped being just your own option long ago. I'm using it, for
one.
Thanks.