From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glenn Morris Subject: Re: org-export raises stringp nil error Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 20:36:33 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87ip539io1.fsf@nautilus.nautilus> <87zjye96ph.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43889) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UDmEe-0002cR-To for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 20:36:38 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UDmEd-0005iz-Kl for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 20:36:36 -0500 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-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Bastien Cc: Lele Gaifax , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Bastien wrote: > Glenn Morris writes: > >> Assuming this is a recent regression, then if anyone from Org wants this >> fixed in Emacs 24.3, they should investigate this very quickly and >> suggest the _minimum_ change. > > The minimal fix is attached. > > The other attachment is the full patch I wanted to apply to merge > Org 7.9.4 into Emacs 24.3. The changes are all safe bugfixes. > > I assumed it was okay to fix bugs after the last pretest, is it so? No, it is not ok, and I don't know why you would think it is. "Release candidate" means "this IS the release unless something CRITICAL occurs". I hoped my various posts to this list had made this clear. It's also been the traditional policy of at least the more recent Emacs releases as far as I know. I should have been stricter in insisting that Org follow the same policy as everybody else during pretesting, in only installing regression bug fixes. I'm pretty sure this has not been happening, given the size and nature of the changes that keep landing. The reason for this policy is (obviously) to prevent inadvertently introducing mistakes. This seems to be exactly what has bitten us in this case, where your patch just reverts the change from http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-diffs/2013-02/msg00058.html Was that fixing a regression? I doubt it. Please apply the first patch as soon as possible. The second includes stuff like deleting comments, declaring functions, and changing autoload for "org-autoload". No, you may not apply this. If there were any fixes in there for important regression bugs against Emacs 24.2, please make a separate patch with just those items.