Tracking master (was: [External] : Re: Undo mode)

[Kévin Le Gouguec]

Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:

> Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:
>
>> I'm not saying anything about this feature or any
>> ship on which someone thinks something has already
>> sailed.
>>
>> But if something isn't in an Emacs release (the
>> latest is 27.2) then I'd say it hasn't sailed.
>
> What if someone tracking master (and there are enough of them to make a
> difference, I think) has customized `undelete-frame-mode' to t?
>
> That's the specific case I was thinking of.

As someone using master as my daily driver for years: I have zero
expectation that features introduced on this development branch will
still be around next week, in their current shape, or in any shape at
all.

My only hope (and still, not an expectation) is that good features will
be discussed and reworked into their best possible iteration by the time
a release is cut.

(Luckily, since collectively, Emacs hackers are as considerate as they
are innovative, I can generally start sitting on newly-installed rugs
without worrying that they'll be pulled from under me.  As a
bleeding-edge user, this brings me a level of comfort that is well worth
the occasional .emacs adjusment)

While patches can and are discussed on the bugtracker before being
applied to master, and feature branches can and are discussed before
being merged, they don't get nearly as much exposure as they do once
they land on master.  For that reason alone, I think it'd be a waste to
miss the chance of using master to gather further feedback and iterate
more before committing to the maintenance burden.

(Although take all that with a grain of salt: I can't remember if the
ship departure schedule has been formally spelled out.  My expectations
(or lack thereof) regarding master might not reflect the maintainers'
policy)