From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kaushal Modi Subject: Re: Sync up the org in emacs master to org maint branch? Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 15:01:26 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87a8afaxlz.fsf@gmx.us> <83fuk63mq5.fsf@gnu.org> <874m0maq9e.fsf@gmx.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114da5104562f2054700a0a4 Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-devel" To: Stefan Monnier , Emacs developers , Kyle Meyer , Rasmus , emacs-org list List-Id: emacs-orgmode.gnu.org --001a114da5104562f2054700a0a4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 1:19 AM Kyle Meyer wrote: > Rasmus writes: > We'd want at least one more release from maint, I think, so that'd be > 9.0.5. > Would it be OK to sync the current stable 9.0.4, and keep on updating with each stable release as time comes? We never know, we might end up with even higher stable releases by the time emacs 26.1 is released. I have been using emacs master and org master for ages now without any issues. So emacs master + org 9.0.4 should not cause any serious problems. The major issues I forsee are the few backward incompatible changes people might have to make when org changes from 8.2.x to 9.x (though all those changes are documented in ORG-NEWS). On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:46 AM Rasmus wrote: > So would now be a good time to sync the Emacs master? I guess the > appropriate way would be to make a new branch that can eventually be > merged. > Going by the same argument as above, do you think that merging org maint into emacs master directly is that risky? org master + emacs master has been super-stable for me. On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:22 AM Stefan Monnier wrote: > > So would now be a good time to sync the Emacs master? > > On `master`, "now" is pretty much *always* a good time to sync. > More specifically, it's better to always keep `master` in sync with the > upstream (applies not just to Org). > > "sync early, sync often", > +1! -- Kaushal Modi --001a114da5104562f2054700a0a4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 1:19 AM Kyle = Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com> wrote:=
Rasmus <rasmus@g= mx.us> writes:
We'd want at least one mor= e release from maint, I think, so that'd be
9.0.= 5.

Would it be OK t= o sync the current stable 9.0.4, and keep on updating with each stable rele= ase as time comes? We never know, we might end up with even higher stable r= eleases by the time emacs 26.1 is released.

I have= been using emacs master and org master for ages now without any issues. So= emacs master=C2=A0+ org 9.0.4 should not cause any serious problems. The m= ajor issues I forsee are the few backward incompatible changes people might= have to make when org changes from 8.2.x to 9.x (though all those changes = are documented in ORG-NEWS).
=C2=A0
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8= :46 AM Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us> wr= ote:
So would no= w be a good time to sync the Emacs master?=C2=A0 I guess the
appropriate way would be to make a new branch that can eventually = be
merged.=C2=A0

Going by the same argument as above, do you think that= merging org maint into emacs master directly is that risky? org master=C2= =A0+ emacs master has been super-stable for me.
=C2=A0
= =C2=A0
On Thu, Jan 2= 6, 2017 at 9:22 AM Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> So would now be a good time to sync the Emacs master?
On `master`, "now" is pretty much *always* a good time to sync. More specifically, it's better to always keep `master` in sync with the=
upstream (applies not just to Org).

"sync early, sync often",

+1!=C2=A0

=C2=A0
--

Kaushal Modi

--001a114da5104562f2054700a0a4--