[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: emacs 21.2
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: emacs 21.2 |
Date: |
23 Mar 2002 08:54:25 +0900 |
"Marshall, Simon" <address@hidden> writes:
> I spent a large amount of my own time tracking down problems with the
> last pretest & coming up with some fixes & testing others'. I did it
> because I thought it would be worth it: I thought the next Emacs
> release would fix those problems. Why would I bother if fixes
> wouldn't appear in the next release?
If a pretest doesn't fix bug-that-annoys-you-X, which you know is fixed
in CVS, then it seems perfectly fair to bring that up as an issue with
the pretest -- as was stated earlier, many things don't get put into the
release branch simply because no one thought too, not necessarily
because they were dangerous.
On the other hand, a traditional pretest is too late for many kinds of
changes, so I wonder if it would be a good idea to officialy have two
stages in the pretest:
(stage 1) Did everything important get fixed?
(stage 2) [a more normal `no big changes' pretest]
-Miles
--
Suburbia: where they tear out the trees and then name streets after them.
- Re: emacs 21.2, (continued)
- Re: emacs 21.2, Richard Stallman, 2002/03/27
- Re: emacs 21.2, Eli Zaretskii, 2002/03/28
- Re: emacs 21.2, Florian Weimer, 2002/03/29
- Re: emacs 21.2, Eli Zaretskii, 2002/03/29
- Re: emacs 21.2, Florian Weimer, 2002/03/29
Re: emacs 21.2, Stefan Monnier, 2002/03/22
RE: emacs 21.2, Marshall, Simon, 2002/03/22
RE: emacs 21.2, Marshall, Simon, 2002/03/22
RE: emacs 21.2, Marshall, Simon, 2002/03/22