From xemacs-m  Sun Jan  5 11:51:22 1997
Received: from mailhost.lanl.gov (mailhost.lanl.gov [128.165.3.12])
          by xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id LAA12029 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 11:51:22 -0600 (CST)
Received: from xdiv.lanl.gov (xdiv.lanl.gov [128.165.116.106]) by mailhost.lanl.gov (8.8.4/8.8.3) with ESMTP id KAA05482 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 10:51:25 -0700 (MST)
Received: from branagh.lanl.gov (branagh.lanl.gov [128.165.16.72]) by xdiv.lanl.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA08700 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 10:51:24 -0700
Received: by branagh.lanl.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA02986; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 10:48:50 -0700
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 10:48:50 -0700
Message-Id: <199701051748.KAA02986@branagh.lanl.gov>
From: John Turner <turner@xdiv.lanl.gov>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: XEmacs 20.0-b34 is released 
In-Reply-To: <199701050420.XAA07275@spacely.icd.teradyne.com>
References: <m2k9ps3hae.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
	<199701050420.XAA07275@spacely.icd.teradyne.com>
Reply-To: turner@lanl.gov

[coming in kinda late on this; tried to pick one of the last msgs in
the thread to follow up to...]

Vinnie Shelton writes:
 > 
 > steve@miranova.com said:
 > > Vinnie> In general, the idea of making 2 simultaneous releases is bad
 > > Vinnie> because it will confuse users and dilute our resources.
 > 
 > > I agree with that.  But we want to get people moved up to v20 as soon
 > > as we can.  At some point there's going to be a simultaneous release,
 > > unless we hold v20 until the summer or beyond, and I don't think
 > > that's really necessary or desirable.  20.0 with mule is as stable or
 > > stabler than 19.14 was.  20.0-latin-1 is stabler.
 > 
 > > Vinnie> If you really want to release 20.0 now, then you should not
 > > Vinnie> release 19.15, but I think this would be a bad idea.
 > 
 > > Yes, that wouldn't make much sense.
 > 
 > > The major point I think you're missing is that since 19.14 only one of
 > > the two source trees has been maintained and worked on -- the v20
 > > source tree.
 > 
 > It's up to you.  Shortly after I came on the list (about a month ago), you 
 > tossed out the idea of not releasing a 19.15.  At that time you said the 
 > sources for 20.0 were not as mature as 19.15.  I took this to mean that 
 > some things hadn't been moved over from 19.15 -> 20.0.  Sorry if I 
 > misunderstood.
 > 
 > If you're confident in 20.0, then release it.  But why release 19.15 at 
 > all, then?  If 20.0 is as good as 19.15, then why fragment our efforts?  We 
 > will only succeed in confusing our users and overburdening ourselves.

Several thoughts:

o There was less discussion on the "should we release 19.15" question
  than I had expected, back when Steve asked.

o Although at the time I was pushing for a 19.15 release, I have to
  say that if 20.0 really is virtually ready to go, then maybe a 19.15
  release should indeed be scuttled.  But I for one have never even
  built a 20.0 beta.  And I've seen more crash reports for 20.0 than
  for 19.15 (I don't recall any for 19.15 for a while).

o I do think simultaneous release is a bad idea.

Steve, I know you tried to resolve this a month or so ago, but maybe
it's worth talking about again.  If 19.15 is canned, then I (and
everybody else) need(s) to start working out 20.0 with a vengance...

-John

