> My point is that we don't do that, in fact. We just fix stuff on > master. Otherwise any safe fixes should have been going to emacs-30 > right up until the emacs-31 branch cut. But they were not, they were > going to master.
I can see some benefit to trying to install more bug-fixes on "the old release branch", but FWIW, here is my guess as to why this hasn't happened much in the past: - After NN.1 is released, I expect much fewer people run the `emacs-NN` branch, so any regression risks remaining undetected before the next (minor) release. If the regression is detected earlier, it'll likely be detected by someone running `master` and there's a chance that the fix will make it only to `master` if we don't notice the link to the previous bug-fix or don't notice that that previous bug-fix was installed in `emacs-NN`. - As changes accumulate on `master` and people work on it, it gets gradually harder for people to figure it if a bug-fix is safe for the `emacs-NN` branch. - As we get closer to the next major release, the motivation to go through the extra trouble of trying to figure out if the bug-fix could also apply to the old branch (and is safe there) gets gradually reduced. We could reduce the effect of the last point if we kept maintaining (and making releases from) `emacs-NN` even after cutting (and making releases from) `emacs-NN+1`, but I don't know how to mitigate the first two. Maybe making more frequent minor releases would help? === Stefan
