From xemacs-m  Thu Apr  3 12:25:09 1997
Received: from crystal.WonderWorks.COM (crystal.WonderWorks.com [192.203.206.1])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA24816
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:25:05 -0600 (CST)
Received: by crystal.WonderWorks.COM 
	id QQcjsb07271; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 13:24:35 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 13:24:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QQcjsb07271.199704031824@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: 19.15 future
In-Reply-To: <m2n2rgotro.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
References: <9704031106.AA18333@ndsoft.com>
	<199704031344.IAA17669@spacely.icd.teradyne.com>
	<QQcjrq04704.199704031538@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
	<m2n2rgotro.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
X-Mailer: VM 6.23 under Emacs 19.34.1
X-Face: /cA45WHG7jWq>(O3&Z57Y<"WsX5ddc,4c#w0F*zrV#=M
        0@~@,s;b,aMtR5Sqs"+nU.z^CSFQ9t`z2>W,S,]:[+2^
        Nbf6v4g>!&,7R4Ot4Wg{&tm=WX7P["9%a)_da48-^tGy
        ,qz]Z,Zz\{E.,]'EO+F)@$KtF&V

Steven L Baur writes:
 > Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com> writes:
 > 
 > > Since there are many of us and few of Steve, someone could take
 > > up the mantle of keeping a source tree with all the blessed 19.15
 > > patches applied and push out a tarball every couple of weeks.
 > > The people using binary distributions lose, but such is life.
 > 
 > I appreciate the thought, but
 > 
 > How do you propose to name the successive post 19.15 releases?

patchlevel 1, patchlevel 2, ...  Doesn't matter much to me.

 > Is it really justified to be making multiple releases every couple of
 > weeks?

I don't consider releases to be the monumental event that you
seem to envision.  Put a new tarball up, post to comp.emacs.xemacs.

 > Isn't this going to be a distraction from the real goal of a lean &
 > mean 20.2?

Irrelevant, I think.  The question is whether the 19.15 bugs are
worth fixing and whether 19.15 is worth supporting at least with
fixes for the egregious bugs.  Just bugfixes!  If it isn't then I
don't think we should have even released it.

 > > This doesn't sound difficult and would be appreciated, I think.
 > 
 > Putting together a compilable XEmacs distribution is a non-trivial
 > and time consuming operation.

I almost always pull down the full tarball, even though it takes
hours, because the patch process just isn't worth the headaches
for me.  So I believe you.  All the better that one person does it
than putting patches on a web site and have hundreds or thousands
of users fight with the patching process.

