From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eric M. Ludlam" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: CEDET version Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:06:28 -0500 Message-ID: <50FE1044.1010307@siege-engine.com> References: <87txqgjfmx.fsf@mail36.net> <9c38xzv0q7.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <76ehhjw8bb.fsf_-_@fencepost.gnu.org> <87wqv62vu1.fsf@engster.org> <0ca9s2ht87.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1358827598 31825 80.91.229.3 (22 Jan 2013 04:06:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 04:06:38 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 22 05:06:57 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TxV8R-00017s-B7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:06:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51936 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TxV8A-0001xg-2b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:06:38 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34540) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TxV87-0001xQ-7m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:06:36 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TxV85-0003EF-OA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:06:35 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-vc0-f181.google.com ([209.85.220.181]:40528) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TxV84-0003Dx-1d; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:06:32 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-vc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id d16so4020063vcd.40 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:06:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=x/Rsj+lolv5klHa2c2kBYSmtIHebfDZgmYTUJL6QJcU=; b=fmvjfNHVQ+tsOxUPcnu9wlu0rkM1ObRXdf3SCgIx8lXt6tVXOEScgb6bx1BtL9TMIB +BF4lLyMtozKEXjdE0hXu8GyxZtIZ2oAZHRngrV4FgIAwdNN7sKpv9oHgf7n6mhbC1NH 93Luvtmwd3dDif3pdG8OaS7T6czv+3QuQigGDufonfW1bsfjTCB90WssmYu5xwjSbK27 LQq6/Toa8QurvLsEsreyU3MhGZsP0kTwBPpRkUqwgOBv9GGVTnLJR4/7HPcOEFGGNM0Q nIKsIL4KTpXLfYPzd62ESwIq+eayr+hQYLJJZNrDLSiUnBTd73Dh6h7lhlGO7nmxagoy Gd4g== X-Received: by 10.52.69.229 with SMTP id h5mr17678357vdu.127.1358827591074; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:06:31 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.201] (pool-72-74-140-235.bstnma.fios.verizon.net. [72.74.140.235]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q13sm8958903vdh.22.2013.01.21.20.06.29 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:06:30 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.3a1pre) Gecko/20091222 Shredder/3.1a1pre In-Reply-To: <0ca9s2ht87.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.220.181 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:156569 Archived-At: On 01/21/2013 09:00 PM, Glenn Morris wrote: > David Engster wrote: > >> Actually, it's more like a 1.2 since 1.1 was already released some time >> ago, and the now bundled files are newer. >> >> It is a bit difficult since we bundle a subset of CEDET with Emacs, so >> upstream versions cannot be really identical. Since we're now merging >> more regularly, maybe we don't need upstream releases anymore and should >> see it more as in incubator. >> >> In any case, I think calling this version "1.1.5" or "1.2" should be >> fine, but I'd like to know what Eric thinks. I'm ok with either of those version numbers. If official released CEDETs are now whatever shows up in Emacs core, that would be fine with me also. Wrapping up a release, and figuring out how to get it to safely overlay in Emacs is a bit challenging. > We can call it whatever version number you like. I think the only real > issue is when using ELPA to install a newer version of CEDET than the > version supplied with Emacs (but maybe this won't be happening?). > > There are various things that this affects; see M-x list-packages > output. semantic, srecode, inversion, pulse, ede, etc. They all have > different version numbers at present. These used to all go out separately and were later merged into once CEDET package. Is there a reason to version-merge them? To be honest, updating all those version numbers each time we prep a release is a bit of a pain, and they all install together. The cross-version-checking isn't as useful a tool as it once was. I do have some scripts I use to manage version numbers though. It could be that whenever a merge occurs, we add running this script to the merge recipe and that will help. Eric