>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Diekhans <[email protected]> writes:
> How about we create a viewmail-dev list that anyone > can subscribe to? That address both issues. Sure, that addresses that issue for those who aren't interested in getting VM moving again as a project. > Göran Uddeborg <[email protected]> writes: >> I'm adding the new "maintainers" list, but for now keep the "info" >> list too as non-maintainer users might want to chime in here. >> >> Mark Diekhans wrote: >> > John Stoffel <[email protected]> writes: >> > > I suspect we should just got with debian 11 as our base, along with >> > > Ubuntu 20.04 LTS, if it's still accepting updates. If not... let's >> > > push to whatever the lowest emacs version is currently shipped on >> > > current stuff. >> > > >> > > Unless someone else has a better idea? >> > >> > sounds very reasonable, I have no better idea. >> >> I would question if we need to go back even that far. Isn't it good >> enough to support the current version of emacs, i.e. 29 right now, for >> any new versions of VM. So I'm running debian 12 and the current version of emacs is 28, so I do think we should try to support back one more version of Debian if it's not going to be a big problem. >> I live mostly in the Fedora world, but I understand both Debian 11 and >> Ubuntu 20.04 are old. Would the packager for those distributions >> really update VM? Without emacs itself being updated? That is not how I >> package for Fedora; the latest and/or upcoming release gets the latest >> VM, older stay where they are unless something actually breaks. Good points, but doesn't Fedora update much more frequently that Debian? I was mostly trying to suggest that we don't need to support anything older than emacs 24 or so, if that helps get the code base cleaner and more supportable. >> If someone is using a distribution with an older emacs, then it >> would make sense you use an older version of VM too. (At least as >> far as new developments are concerned. If we would find e.g. a >> security issue in VM, that would be another thing.) Maybe? I just don't want us to leave too many people in the dust, me included. I also don't get the impression that emacs is changing _that_ fast either. But I could be very very wrong. >> Would this be too agressive? My goal is to keep the load on developers >> as light as possible, in order to maximize the chance things get done. Amen, this is certainly a good goal!
