From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: No calc in pretest? Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 13:08:58 +0300 (IDT) Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <5xit3ypl9d.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1025604749 26089 127.0.0.1 (2 Jul 2002 10:12:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:12:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 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 17PKe4-0006ma-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 12:12:28 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17PKj3-0006ri-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 12:17:37 +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 17PKdj-0004PJ-00; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 06:12:07 -0400 Original-Received: from is.elta.co.il ([199.203.121.2]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17PKct-0004H6-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 06:11:15 -0400 Original-Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA10234; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 13:08:59 +0300 (IDT) X-Sender: eliz@is Original-To: storm@cua.dk In-Reply-To: <5xit3ypl9d.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> 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:5314 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:5314 On 2 Jul 2002 storm@cua.dk wrote: > This could also help us avoid the current hazzle of modifying the > "next version" number whenever we need to make a bug-fix release. So > far, we have had to change the "expected" number from 21.3 to 21.4 > which has an impact not only on documentation, but also on the > :version tags we put on customize options. >From my experience of making these version changes, it's a non-issue. > Also, the number of changes since 21.1/2/3 seems to be fairly > large, so maybe it does make sense to switch to 22.x for the > next release from CVS. I don't have any strong feelings, but IMHO changing the major version number after only 3 releases is generally undesirable. So far, the major version changed when some significant new feature was added: v19 - support for X v20 - m17n v21 - new display engine If we follow this, v22 should be the Unicode-based Emacs, not some intermediate release.