On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Achim Gratz <strom...@nexgo.de> wrote: > Nikolai Weibull writes: >> Is trying to manage it via git+make oneself less likely to cause >> incidents?
> There's a bunch of people who seem to manage it just fine. Did I say otherwise? Does this preclude making an alternative available, one that at least some would consider simpler to access? >> From the FAQ: >> >> The master branch of the git repository always contains the bleeding >> edge development code. This is important for Org's fast development, >> because code on master gets checked out by many people daily and we >> quickly receive bug reports if something is wrong. On rare occasions, >> this code may not function perfectly for a limited time while we are >> trying to fix things. It is therefore recommended to keep a known-good >> version of org-mode installed outside the source tree and always run >> the full test suite before using a new version from master. > Yes, if the absolutely latest master doesn't work, people can just check > out whatever version was working for them last and continue without > waiting for the next snapshot from ELPA /which may or may not work). See below. >> The more time that passes between releases, the harder it is to >> release a new version. >> >> And as this is the case here, having easy access to the latest >> “version” would lessen the effect of this. It would also allow more >> people to find bugs. > It doesn't get any easier than it already is. (How can this statement possibly be true?) > Having both a stable and > an unstable version of Org avilable via ELPA is a non-starter for the > simple reason that the package manager can't deal with the versioning > problems this would introduce. This could, I assume, and was sort of implied in my original e-mail, be solved by providing an “org” package as it is today (based off of maint) and an “org-edge” package that’d be based off of master.
