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 16:15:55 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <200207022115.g62LFt719433@d-ip-129-15-78-125.cs.ou.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1025644688 25063 127.0.0.1 (2 Jul 2002 21:18:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 21:18:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 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 17PV2G-0006W8-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 23:18:08 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17PV7S-000594-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 23:23:30 +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 17PV2M-0008Fu-00; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 17:18:14 -0400 Original-Received: from d-ip-129-15-78-125.cs.ou.edu ([129.15.78.125]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17PV0L-00084r-00; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 17:16:09 -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 g62LFt719433; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 16:15:55 -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 16:18:06 EDT." <200207022018.g62KI6r20249@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:5372 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:5372 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > 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. I'm confused: if you `mostly care about' BB, why spend so much time arguing with Miles and me? > 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. What trouble? The trouble of converting to a three-element system (i.e., using fully general lexical ordering rather than un-rolling the loops), or the trouble of changing things if what we thought was x.y turns out to be (x+1).1? Nobody's asking you to take any trouble about the first case, and I doubt the second case will be important enough to bother you. > 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. This is something I've never understood: why do people who don't care about the answer spend so much time on the question? Why not just let those who do care decide? > Since I find it unimportant, I don't think it's worth the trouble > (since it would be a change that requires hacking). This change should require 0 trouble to you, since no one's asking anything of you. I'll do all the work to set it up, and I don't think any further work will be required. How can it not be worth that to you? > Stefan Jon Cast