Stefan Monnier via "Emacs development discussions." [25/Jun 11:13pm -04] wrote: >> 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`.
Thanks. I find this to be a persuasive reason not to try to make more point releases. I'll work on a patch to our notes in admin/ for the middle ground policy where we always expect to make a .2 that has lots of fixes (and so people should continue installing fixes there instead of master until the release of .2), but thereafter it's critical bug fixes only. -- Sean Whitton
