On Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 12:36 PM Stéphane Marks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2026 at 6:30 PM Jim Porter <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 6/26/2026 11:22 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> > So you are making conclusions from the fact that, for almost all Emacs >> > versions since Emacs 26 till now, we decided another NN.x release >> > after NN.2 was not justified, and _then_ started the release cycle for >> > NN+1. IOW, the cause and effect are the other way around. >> >> Oh, I see. I was under the impression that there was a preferred amount >> of time between major releases, and then minor releases just fit in >> there as needed. I don't have a strong opinion on which way would be >> better, though I imagine that starting the release cycle for NN+1 only >> after we've decided not to do any more NN releases is less work (or at >> least, less work happening simultaneously). >> > > I sense that with igc potentially on the verge of merging into master that > 32 will come faster just because of its all-intrusive nature. > Do you mean that the time spent honing 31 will be shortened because the master branch will almost immediately diverge from being a source of bug-fixes that can be safely back-ported? Lynn
