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 16:18:06 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <200207022018.g62KI6r20249@rum.cs.yale.edu> References: <200207022009.g62K9b719131@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 1025641308 16808 127.0.0.1 (2 Jul 2002 20:21:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 20:21:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier , Miles Bader , 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 17PU9k-0004Mz-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 22:21:48 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17PUEv-0003x9-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 22:27:09 +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 17PU91-0002TO-00; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:21:03 -0400 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu ([128.36.229.169]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17PU6B-00023A-00; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:18:07 -0400 Original-Received: (from monnier@localhost) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g62KI6r20249; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 16:18:06 -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:5357 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:5357 > > That when it was decided that 21.3 would also be a bugfix release, > > several :version and make-obsolete statements had to be updated to > > say "21.4" instead of "21.3". A quick grep shows that not all of > > the occurrences have been updated yet. > > You do realize this cannot happen with either my scheme or yours, > right? So it has nothing to do with which scheme is adopted. I understand that my scheme is AA.BB while yours is A.A.BB. The use of BB as the "bugfix" indicator is common to both proposals and that's the one I mostly care about. If people prefer using CC.AA.BB, that's fine by me, but as far as I'm concerned the distinction between major and really-major releases is too fuzzy to be worth the trouble. All I care about is that each CVS branch have its own "major" number so it is independent from the others. Whether those numbers look like AA or A.A (i.e. "22" or "22.2") is not really important to me and (I believe) in general. Since I find it unimportant, I don't think it's worth the trouble (since it would be a change that requires hacking). Stefan