From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Reuben Thomas Subject: Re: Bug: Please supply stable releases on ELPA or MELPA Stable [8.3.4 (8.3.4-dist @ /usr/local/share/emacs/25.1.50/site-lisp/org-mode/)] Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:45:53 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87mvhltqpw.fsf@sc3d.org> <87oa21tmp0.fsf@gmail.com> <87ins8ftyv.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1a0ba0b2c5b205402e74be Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42083) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1IWr-0001NR-NJ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:45:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1IWq-0006xa-At for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:45:57 -0400 Received: from mail-lf0-x232.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c07::232]:34375) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1IWp-0006xC-S8 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:45:56 -0400 Received: by mail-lf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id b81so111377681lfe.1 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:45:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87ins8ftyv.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: Reuben Thomas , Josiah Schwab , "emacs-orgmode@gnu.org" , Bastien Guerry --94eb2c1a0ba0b2c5b205402e74be Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 31 October 2016 at 14:56, Nicolas Goaziou wrote= : > Hello, > > Reuben Thomas writes: > > > =E2=80=8BThat's great! However, is a cut of the release branch as good = as an > actual > > release? > > It is better, since it contains more bugfixes than last release without > adding new features. > =E2=80=8BThat's good to know.=E2=80=8B > Thought experiment: if it is good enough, surely the web site should > > point users to this installation method for the stable version? > > Isn't it the case already? From the first page I see > > M-x list-packages RET (see Org ELPA) > > Daily snapshots: tar.gz or zip > =E2=80=8BThe web page is quite clear. Under "Download and install" you can = get "Stable version" (only from source), or "Development version" (cgit or M_x list-packages RET), or "Daily snapshots".=E2=80=8B In other words, it looks as though the Org ELPA version is a development version. The linked page does nothing to counter this impression. I suggest that the "M-x list-packages RET" part be moved up the page to "Stable version"; it should say something like: "Stable version: M-x list-packages RET (see Org ELPA; includes fixes since last release), or tar.gz or zip (release notes). Ideally there would be up-to-date release notes for the ELPA version, so that users can see which bugs are fixed. This should be easy if there is a partially-completed release notes file in preparation for the next release. In other words, the ELPA method should be highlighted as the preferred method of installation, and it should be made obvious that it's stable (this is why I think it's important to change the version of the ELPA package to contain the version number; by the way, considering it as a semver version number, it already is monotonic). Being able to install org-mode stable from ELPA is something I've wanted for years without realising it is already available! I bet I'm not the only one=E2=80=A6 --=20 http://rrt.sc3d.org --94eb2c1a0ba0b2c5b205402e74be Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On = 31 October 2016 at 14:56, Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr= > wrote:
Hello,

Reuben Thomas <rrt@sc3d.org> writ= es:

> =E2=80=8BThat's great! However, is a cut of the release branch as = good as an actual
> release?

It is better, since it contains more bugfixes than last release with= out
adding new features.

=E2=80=8BThat's good to know.=E2= =80=8B

> Thought experiment: if it is good enough, surely the web site sh= ould
> point users to this installation method for the stable version?

Isn't it the case already? From the first page I see

=C2=A0 M-x list-packages RET (see Org ELPA)

=C2=A0 Daily snapshots: tar.gz or zip

<= div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-size:small">=E2=80=8BThe web page= is quite clear. Under "Download and install" you can get "S= table version" (only from source), or "Development version" = (cgit or M_x list-packages RET), or "Daily snapshots".=E2=80=8B

In other words, it looks a= s though the Org ELPA version is a development version. The linked page doe= s nothing to counter this impression.

I suggest that the "M-x list-packages RET" p= art be moved up the page to "Stable version"; it should say somet= hing like:

=
"Stable v= ersion: M-x list-packages RET (see Org ELPA; includes fixes since last rele= ase), or tar.gz or zip (release notes).

Ideally there would be up-to-date release notes for the ELPA= version, so that users can see which bugs are fixed. This should be easy i= f there is a partially-completed release notes file in preparation for the = next release.
<= br>
In other wo= rds, the ELPA method should be highlighted as the preferred method of insta= llation, and it should be made obvious that it's stable (this is why I = think it's important to change the version of the ELPA package to conta= in the version number; by the way, considering it as a semver version numbe= r, it already is monotonic).

Being able to install org-mode stable from ELPA is something I've w= anted for years without realising it is already available! I bet I'm no= t the only one=E2=80=A6

--
ht= tp://rrt.sc3d.org
--94eb2c1a0ba0b2c5b205402e74be--