> From: Sean Whitton <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected] > Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2026 10:11:03 +0100 > > Eli Zaretskii [25/Jun 6:17pm +03] wrote: > > Numbers to back the impression that "our NN.1 releases always feel > > like they take longer than we would like". Can you take the part of > > etc/HISTORY since Emacs 26.1 and tell what kind of schedule you'd like > > to see instead? > > Emphasis on the "feel" -- I didn't mean to claim that they actually do > take longer than is reasonable, my point was that they feel like they > do. > > >> We could say that we stop doing this as soon as the next branch is cut. > > > > Sorry: stop doing what? > > I meant: if we were to go with the plan where we continue to install all > safe fixes on the release branch, we could stop making new > (non-critical) point releases from it at the point at which we cut the > new release branch.
If we don't make releases from a branch, what's the point of installing fixes on it? I'm probably missing something. > > The main point, I think, is this: will keeping the release branch > > alive for longer delay the start of the release cycle for NN+1.1? It > > might do that for reasons of manpower and resources we have, if > > nothing else. > > I agree that this is the main point. It would be good to have some > others chime in, I'm really not sure myself. The number of people who have real-life experience in these matters is quite limited 😉. When in doubt, we could just try something and then draw our conclusions from the experience.
