From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: next emacs version? Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:51:11 -0700 Message-ID: References: <56D10E2523764AC98D99CEBC55DBAD93@us.oracle.com><83iq8sigyq.fsf@gnu.org><83d3z0i3nu.fsf@gnu.org><911BA1D06CEB4306924D0069BA2D3DFF@us.oracle.com><83bpeki18a.fsf@gnu.org><83aau4hv38.fsf@gnu.org><0E10B96B5C814EE8B95B57972F13E189@us.oracle.com> <5E984B3C-4B86-4FA6-8675-4C8501CC2285@raeburn.org> <11D537FD-7D31-43A9-BD43-8F734576F0EC@raeburn.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1269067947 27832 80.91.229.12 (20 Mar 2010 06:52:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 06:52:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "'Ken Raeburn'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 20 07:52:20 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NssXi-0002sN-RP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:52:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47703 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NssXi-0003hR-BK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:52:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NssXb-0003gi-Je for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:52:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=38206 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NssXZ-0003gN-Cs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:52:10 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NssXY-0002tY-20 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:52:09 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet12.oracle.com ([148.87.113.124]:49674) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NssXX-0002tU-Rc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:52:08 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet12.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o2K6q5uu031587 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 20 Mar 2010 06:52:07 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o2K6Lavq017343; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 06:52:05 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt008.oracle.com by acsmt354.oracle.com with ESMTP id 97141801269067870; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:51:10 -0700 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/24.5.179.75) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:51:10 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <11D537FD-7D31-43A9-BD43-8F734576F0EC@raeburn.org> Thread-Index: AcrH7qeCVPbaQ7wOT1et9YRrh2tYlQABTujQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Source-IP: acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090205.4BA47095.0103:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:122347 Archived-At: > If you insist that they keep current (or more specifically, > that the only dev version you'll support is the current one, > when you support any dev version at all), you shouldn't need > anything more fine-grained than "release X" or "dev version > leading up to release Y", should you? I think I'm confused > about whether you're trying to support people running > outdated dev versions. Yes, I wasn't very clear. My only real intention is to support official releases. Occasionally, I try to support the latest dev version (or the dev version when I make the update) as well as the last (i.e., previous) release. The point of fixing things so the code still works after the last release is so that users can continue to use it. But Jason is no doubt right that most people who use dev versions rebuild frequently. > > But sometimes (esp. if the release cycle is long) I do make > > changes (esp. if minor) that allow my code to keep working > > with the latest development version. > > When you do this, do you also try to keep it working with the > earlier development versions? Or is it okay to break things > for dev-from-last-month as long as 23.1 and > dev-from-this-month both still work? The latter is fine, from my point of view. > If the changes are easy enough to identify, supporting all of > them is great. But if they're too difficult to identify > without resorting to version numbers, is it really that > important to support (in effect) multiple dev versions rather > than just the latest (at this point, perhaps along both of > the next-minor-release and next-major-release branches)? No, I have no intention of supporting multiple dev versions in different ways.