Re: Support of older Emacs versions

[Mark Diekhans]

oh, good point.

How about we create a viewmail-dev list that anyone
can subscribe to?  That address both issues.

Mark

Göran Uddeborg <goeran@uddeborg.se> 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 <john@stoffel.org> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.)
> 
> 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.
> 
> [GNUPG:] NEWSIG goeran@uddeborg.se
> [GNUPG:] ERRSIG A3BDBAE07D4757EB 1 8 01 1720906661 9 
> 25758E3A5ED7B931DE4A5030A3BDBAE07D4757EB
> [GNUPG:] NO_PUBKEY A3BDBAE07D4757EB
> [GNUPG:] FAILURE gpg-exit 33554433