* Unicode 9.0
@ 2016-03-11 19:36 Eli Zaretskii
2016-03-11 21:29 ` John Wiegley
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2016-03-11 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Wiegley; +Cc: emacs-devel
Unicode 9.0.0 is scheduled to be released in June this year, which is
probably around the Emacs 25.1 release date. Unicode 9.0.0 started
its beta review today. Should we import the updated data files into
Emacs now, so that they are part of the pretest?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Unicode 9.0
2016-03-11 19:36 Unicode 9.0 Eli Zaretskii
@ 2016-03-11 21:29 ` John Wiegley
2016-03-11 22:01 ` Paul Eggert
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: John Wiegley @ 2016-03-11 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-devel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 518 bytes --]
>>>>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> Unicode 9.0.0 is scheduled to be released in June this year, which is
> probably around the Emacs 25.1 release date. Unicode 9.0.0 started its beta
> review today. Should we import the updated data files into Emacs now, so
> that they are part of the pretest?
If you feel safe doing so, I'd be fine with it.
--
John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 629 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Unicode 9.0
2016-03-11 21:29 ` John Wiegley
@ 2016-03-11 22:01 ` Paul Eggert
2016-03-12 15:53 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Paul Eggert @ 2016-03-11 22:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii, emacs-devel
John Wiegley wrote:
> If you feel safe doing so, I'd be fine with it.
+1. The beta 9.0.0 files are more likely to be useful for Emacs 25.1 users than
the 8.0.0 files.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Unicode 9.0
2016-03-11 22:01 ` Paul Eggert
@ 2016-03-12 15:53 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-03-17 2:57 ` David De La Harpe Golden
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2016-03-12 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Eggert, John Wiegley; +Cc: emacs-devel
> From: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:01:12 -0800
>
> John Wiegley wrote:
> > If you feel safe doing so, I'd be fine with it.
>
> +1. The beta 9.0.0 files are more likely to be useful for Emacs 25.1 users than
> the 8.0.0 files.
Done.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Unicode 9.0
2016-03-12 15:53 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2016-03-17 2:57 ` David De La Harpe Golden
2016-03-17 3:42 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: David De La Harpe Golden @ 2016-03-17 2:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-devel
On 12/03/16 15:53, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
>> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:01:12 -0800
>>
>> John Wiegley wrote:
>>> If you feel safe doing so, I'd be fine with it.
>>
>> +1. The beta 9.0.0 files are more likely to be useful for Emacs 25.1 users than
>> the 8.0.0 files.
>
> Done.
>
This may well be something that was going without saying, but just in
case / to be pernickety, there's a specific warning on the beta 9 page:
http://unicode.org/versions/beta-9.0.0.html
"""
No products or implementations should be released based on the beta UCD
data files—use only the final, approved Version 9.0.0 data files,
expected in June 2016.
"""
It is also stated there they have already frozen the code point and
character names, and to be honest I haven't even looked at what's new in
9 in any depth. In practice there may well not be any more changes
before finalisation of 9, whether emacs-significant changes or otherwise.
And I'm _not_ objecting to the recent update (a761fbf2) of the files to
beta 9 in git for a shakedown during pretest, which I think was what Eli
meant anyway, but that's still distinct from an emacs official versioned
release tarball.
I just mean (and this very probably won't even arise in the end): at
some future time close to the emacs release, if for some reason unicode
9 still isn't officially final yet, and if for some reason you don't
want to delay the emacs release a bit to wait for it... the official
emacs release should probably be made with older final definitions, not
any beta ones.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Unicode 9.0
2016-03-17 2:57 ` David De La Harpe Golden
@ 2016-03-17 3:42 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2016-03-17 3:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David De La Harpe Golden; +Cc: emacs-devel
> From: David De La Harpe Golden <david@harpegolden.net>
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 02:57:15 +0000
>
> This may well be something that was going without saying, but just in
> case / to be pernickety, there's a specific warning on the beta 9 page:
>
> http://unicode.org/versions/beta-9.0.0.html
> """
> No products or implementations should be released based on the beta UCD
> data files—use only the final, approved Version 9.0.0 data files,
> expected in June 2016.
> """
>
> It is also stated there they have already frozen the code point and
> character names, and to be honest I haven't even looked at what's new in
> 9 in any depth. In practice there may well not be any more changes
> before finalisation of 9, whether emacs-significant changes or otherwise.
>
> And I'm _not_ objecting to the recent update (a761fbf2) of the files to
> beta 9 in git for a shakedown during pretest, which I think was what Eli
> meant anyway, but that's still distinct from an emacs official versioned
> release tarball.
>
> I just mean (and this very probably won't even arise in the end): at
> some future time close to the emacs release, if for some reason unicode
> 9 still isn't officially final yet, and if for some reason you don't
> want to delay the emacs release a bit to wait for it... the official
> emacs release should probably be made with older final definitions, not
> any beta ones.
I don't see why we should refrain from using the beta files in the
release, if they don't release the official Unicode 9.0 by the time we
are ready. No reason whatsoever.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-03-17 3:42 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-03-11 19:36 Unicode 9.0 Eli Zaretskii
2016-03-11 21:29 ` John Wiegley
2016-03-11 22:01 ` Paul Eggert
2016-03-12 15:53 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-03-17 2:57 ` David De La Harpe Golden
2016-03-17 3:42 ` Eli Zaretskii
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).