From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: No calc in pretest? Date: 03 Jul 2002 00:48:31 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <5xvg7xd9vk.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> References: <200207022122.g62LMAN19485@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 1025646489 28884 127.0.0.1 (2 Jul 2002 21:48:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 21:48:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Francesco Potorti` , 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 17PVVI-0007Vl-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 23:48:08 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17PVaV-0005pc-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 23:53:31 +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 17PVVG-00042N-00; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 17:48:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.filanet.dk ([195.215.206.179]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17PVV5-00041R-00; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 17:47:55 -0400 Original-Received: from kfs2.cua.dk.cua.dk (unknown [10.1.82.3]) by mail.filanet.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 6603D7C016; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 21:47:53 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: Jon Cast In-Reply-To: <200207022122.g62LMAN19485@d-ip-129-15-78-125.cs.ou.edu> Original-Lines: 23 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 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:5375 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:5375 Jon Cast writes: > > Again, I'm a strong believer in lexicographic ordering. IMO, it doesn't really matter as long as our primary focus is using consistent values for emacs-major-version (21) and emacs-minor-version (5). > 21.5.0.yyyymmdd sorts higher than 21.5.0, so it should be a later > release. Then call the initial release 21.5.1. In my company, we (the R&D people) have implemented the version number as a free-format string. The actual contents of this string for any given release is defined by Marketing (implying that it doesn't have to make sense [to us] :-) -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk