From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jon Cast Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: No calc in pretest? Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 14:52:47 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <200207021952.g62Jqli19065@d-ip-129-15-78-125.cs.ou.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1025640963 15896 127.0.0.1 (2 Jul 2002 20:16:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 20:16:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , storm@cua.dk, Emacs Devel Mailing List Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17PU4B-00048G-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 22:16:03 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17PU9M-0003kZ-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 22:21:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17PU3F-0001lc-00; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:15:05 -0400 Original-Received: from delysid.gnu.org ([158.121.106.20]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17PU0J-0001HZ-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:12:03 -0400 Original-Received: from d-ip-129-15-78-125.cs.ou.edu ([129.15.78.125]) by delysid.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #2) id 17PTkA-00045d-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 15:55:23 -0400 Original-Received: from ou.edu (jcast@localhost) by d-ip-129-15-78-125.cs.ou.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g62Jqli19065; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 14:52:47 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: d-ip-129-15-78-125.cs.ou.edu: jcast owned process doing -bs Original-To: Stefan Monnier In-Reply-To: Message from Stefan Monnier of "Tue, 02 Jul 2002 11:28:27 EDT." <200207021528.g62FSST17855@rum.cs.yale.edu> Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:5355 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:5355 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > I don't have any strong feelings, but IMHO changing the major > > version number after only 3 releases is generally undesirable. > I don't see any good reason why this should be so. I don't see any good reason why it shouldn't be so, and I don't see any bad reason either. Even if you don't think tradition, conformance to the cultural expectations of Free Software users, etc. are good reasons, you have to admit they're bad reasons :) > > So far, the major version changed when some significant new > > feature was added: > > v19 - support for X > > v20 - m17n > > v21 - new display engine > What about between v17 and v18 ? I don't think either of those existed. > What about between v3 and v4 ? I know those didn't exist. > What is the relevance of all of it anyway. Version number carry information for users, even more than for the system (although the presence of bug fix releases does change that slightly. Users aren't expecting bug fix releases, so they aren't expecting that change, though.) How users will read version numbers is very important to how they should be set up, just like how users will read documentation is very important to how it should be set up. > It's merely psychological and not even very strongly felt by anyone > anyway. I feel it very strongly. > To me (and many other people I know), the differences between v19 > and v21 are not that significant since I don't use anything else > than latin-1 and my bufffers are 99.9% filled with the same > misc-fixed-semicondensed. The jump from 19.28 to 19.29 was more > significant to me in some regards. Are you arguing we don't have a fixed frame of reference to judge ``major'' from? I think we do (or should): what is a significant step toward the goals of the Emacs maintainer? Those steps merit major version number bumps. Others don't. > > If we follow this, v22 should be the Unicode-based Emacs, not some > > intermediate release. > Again, I don't see any reason why this should be so. If it's more > convenient to name the current trunk 22.0, then I think it should be > done. I don't think we have /any/ gain in convenience labeling the current trunk 22.0 over 21.4. And users expect major releases to be, well, major. What reason does Emacs have to dis-regard that? > Stefan Jon Cast