From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stefan Monnier" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: No calc in pretest? Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 15:54:13 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <200207021954.g62JsDK19668@rum.cs.yale.edu> References: <200207021941.g62JfYP19016@d-ip-129-15-78-125.cs.ou.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1025640003 13571 127.0.0.1 (2 Jul 2002 20:00:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 20:00:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier , Eli Zaretskii , burton@openprivacy.org, 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 17PToh-0003Wm-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 22:00:03 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17PTtr-0003Ns-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 22:05:23 +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 17PToj-0008Ih-00; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:00:05 -0400 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu ([128.36.229.169]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17PTmr-0007ul-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 15:58:09 -0400 Original-Received: (from monnier@localhost) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g62JsDK19668; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 15:54:13 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 Original-To: Jon Cast 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:5342 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:5342 > > We could simply decide that RC versions will be 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, > > 21.4 and the next trunk version will be 22.1 (at which point it will > > be on its own branch for 22.2, 22.3, 22.4, ...). > > This is, as many others have pointed out, a /bad/ idea. The only > reason for having multiple version numbers at all, rather than number > 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., is to inform users of the gravity of changes. Making > a major release every time a release from trunk is made will destroy > that information. As I said, I don't really buy that argument. We'd still have this info since 22.2 would be a bugfix release (i.e. a minor change) over 22.1. We just wouldn't be able to differentiate between "major" and "really major", but as I pointed out, this has already been the case in the past, if you look at how the 19.x versions evolved. There was no easy way to tell if a new version was just a bugfix, a minor improvement or a major step forward. > Anyway, loadup.el should work without modification (or with only > slight modifications) in my scheme (it DTRT with CVS versions, which > have three element version numbers :). And ISTR that CVS bug reports > go to a different address than pre-test bug reports, so emacsbug.el > probably needs to be fixed anyway. So, I don't see any technical > reason not to go with three element version number for bug fix > releases, and a very good psychological/sociological reason to switch > to them. For the record, I don't have any objection to using 3-part revisions. I just find that keeping the same 2-part revisions but just bumping the first number more often is simpler. Stefan