* Re: Emacs pretest 24.2.92 @ 2013-01-17 9:57 sindikat 2013-01-17 23:38 ` Glenn Morris 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: sindikat @ 2013-01-17 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-devel Will CEDET 1.1 be in Emacs 24.3? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs pretest 24.2.92 2013-01-17 9:57 Emacs pretest 24.2.92 sindikat @ 2013-01-17 23:38 ` Glenn Morris 2013-01-18 1:59 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2013-01-18 2:09 ` CEDET version [was Re: Emacs pretest 24.2.92] Glenn Morris 0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Glenn Morris @ 2013-01-17 23:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: sindikat; +Cc: emacs-devel sindikat wrote: > Will CEDET 1.1 be in Emacs 24.3? emacs-24.2.92 -Q -l cedet C-h v cedet-version -> "1.1" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs pretest 24.2.92 2013-01-17 23:38 ` Glenn Morris @ 2013-01-18 1:59 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2013-01-18 2:09 ` CEDET version [was Re: Emacs pretest 24.2.92] Glenn Morris 1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2013-01-18 1:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Glenn Morris; +Cc: sindikat, emacs-devel Glenn Morris writes: > sindikat wrote: > > > Will CEDET 1.1 be in Emacs 24.3? > > emacs-24.2.92 -Q -l cedet > C-h v cedet-version > -> "1.1" > In XEmacs, we can do xemacs -q -eval '(pkg-get-package-info "cedet" "author-version")' (or something like that, the function may be misspelled). For packages that are maintained by a separate project (CEDET, Gnus, AUCTeX), a similar facility (that doesn't care whether it's Emacs or GNU ELPA) might be useful in Emacs. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* CEDET version [was Re: Emacs pretest 24.2.92] 2013-01-17 23:38 ` Glenn Morris 2013-01-18 1:59 ` Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2013-01-18 2:09 ` Glenn Morris 2013-01-21 2:20 ` CEDET version Glenn Morris 1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Glenn Morris @ 2013-01-18 2:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-devel; +Cc: sindikat Glenn Morris wrote: > emacs-24.2.92 -Q -l cedet > C-h v cedet-version > -> "1.1" Yet the Version: header says 1.0pre7. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: CEDET version 2013-01-18 2:09 ` CEDET version [was Re: Emacs pretest 24.2.92] Glenn Morris @ 2013-01-21 2:20 ` Glenn Morris 2013-01-21 19:13 ` David Engster 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Glenn Morris @ 2013-01-21 2:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-devel; +Cc: David Engster Glenn Morris wrote: >> emacs-24.2.92 -Q -l cedet >> C-h v cedet-version >> -> "1.1" > > Yet the Version: header says 1.0pre7. Hi, could you clarify what the CEDET version is in the emacs-24 branch and if any of the Version: headers need updating? Thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: CEDET version 2013-01-21 2:20 ` CEDET version Glenn Morris @ 2013-01-21 19:13 ` David Engster 2013-01-22 2:00 ` Glenn Morris 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: David Engster @ 2013-01-21 19:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Glenn Morris; +Cc: Eric M. Ludlam, emacs-devel Glenn Morris writes: > Glenn Morris wrote: > >>> emacs-24.2.92 -Q -l cedet >>> C-h v cedet-version >>> -> "1.1" >> >> Yet the Version: header says 1.0pre7. > > Hi, could you clarify what the CEDET version is in the emacs-24 branch > and if any of the Version: headers need updating? 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. -David ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: CEDET version 2013-01-21 19:13 ` David Engster @ 2013-01-22 2:00 ` Glenn Morris 2013-01-22 4:06 ` Eric M. Ludlam 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Glenn Morris @ 2013-01-22 2:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-devel; +Cc: Eric M. Ludlam 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. 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: CEDET version 2013-01-22 2:00 ` Glenn Morris @ 2013-01-22 4:06 ` Eric M. Ludlam 2013-01-22 19:10 ` Glenn Morris 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Eric M. Ludlam @ 2013-01-22 4:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Glenn Morris; +Cc: emacs-devel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: CEDET version 2013-01-22 4:06 ` Eric M. Ludlam @ 2013-01-22 19:10 ` Glenn Morris 2013-01-22 22:51 ` Eric M. Ludlam 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Glenn Morris @ 2013-01-22 19:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric M. Ludlam; +Cc: emacs-devel "Eric M. Ludlam" wrote: >> 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? I'm not asking for any changes like that, I'm just asking for someone to who knows about CEDET versioning to check that all the version numbers the components have in Emacs make sense. Eg the first one I look at is semantic.el, which says: ;; Version: 2.0 [...] (defvar semantic-version "2.1beta" Ie, inconsistent in the same way that cedet.el is. I don't have any opinion on what the version numbers should be, I am saying that these two should be consistent, and asking what value to use. I have no idea what version of CEDET, semantic, etc are actually in Emacs. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: CEDET version 2013-01-22 19:10 ` Glenn Morris @ 2013-01-22 22:51 ` Eric M. Ludlam 2013-01-23 7:38 ` David Engster 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Eric M. Ludlam @ 2013-01-22 22:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Glenn Morris; +Cc: emacs-devel On 01/22/2013 02:10 PM, Glenn Morris wrote: > "Eric M. Ludlam" wrote: > >>> 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? > > I'm not asking for any changes like that, I'm just asking for someone to > who knows about CEDET versioning to check that all the version numbers > the components have in Emacs make sense. Eg the first one I look at is > semantic.el, which says: > > ;; Version: 2.0 > [...] > (defvar semantic-version "2.1beta" > > Ie, inconsistent in the same way that cedet.el is. Ah, thanks for clarifying. I hadn't realized the comment and variable were going out of sync. A side-effect of using an incomplete script. I can update the script to keep those in sync in the future the CEDET repository. The variable is the correct version. I'm not certain about the 'beta' though. I usually put a number after the beta, like 2.1beta1 or some such. Thanks Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: CEDET version 2013-01-22 22:51 ` Eric M. Ludlam @ 2013-01-23 7:38 ` David Engster 2013-01-23 13:17 ` Eric M. Ludlam 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: David Engster @ 2013-01-23 7:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric M. Ludlam; +Cc: emacs-devel Eric M. Ludlam writes: > Ah, thanks for clarifying. I hadn't realized the comment and variable > were going out of sync. A side-effect of using an incomplete script. > I can update the script to keep those in sync in the future the CEDET > repository. The variable is the correct version. > > I'm not certain about the 'beta' though. I usually put a number after > the beta, like 2.1beta1 or some such. OK, but what should be done now? If you bump the numbers in CEDET upstream to a stable version, I can merge that change to the emacs-24 branch. For the future, I'd rather get rid of all those separate version numbers for all the sub-packages. They may have been useful back in the day, but I don't think they're worth the hassle now. Let's just have one CEDET version and be done with it. -David ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: CEDET version 2013-01-23 7:38 ` David Engster @ 2013-01-23 13:17 ` Eric M. Ludlam 2013-01-23 20:39 ` David Engster 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Eric M. Ludlam @ 2013-01-23 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Glenn Morris, emacs-devel On 01/23/2013 02:38 AM, David Engster wrote: > Eric M. Ludlam writes: >> Ah, thanks for clarifying. I hadn't realized the comment and variable >> were going out of sync. A side-effect of using an incomplete script. >> I can update the script to keep those in sync in the future the CEDET >> repository. The variable is the correct version. >> >> I'm not certain about the 'beta' though. I usually put a number after >> the beta, like 2.1beta1 or some such. > > OK, but what should be done now? > > If you bump the numbers in CEDET upstream to a stable version, I can > merge that change to the emacs-24 branch. Ok. There were pretty big changes in the file system and merges across all the parts of CEDET to warrant a version bump. Or... > For the future, I'd rather get rid of all those separate version numbers > for all the sub-packages. They may have been useful back in the day, but > I don't think they're worth the hassle now. Let's just have one CEDET > version and be done with it. ...we could just remove all the version numbers, and call it CEDET 2.0. If there are dependencies out there on the version numbers, it shouldn't be too hard to redirect to the overall cedet version. Doing that will be more work than just running my script. I've got cub-scout overload the next two weeks coming on with a pinewood derby. Is there a time crunch on this? Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: CEDET version 2013-01-23 13:17 ` Eric M. Ludlam @ 2013-01-23 20:39 ` David Engster 2013-01-31 0:04 ` Eric M. Ludlam 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: David Engster @ 2013-01-23 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric M. Ludlam; +Cc: emacs-devel Eric M. Ludlam writes: >> For the future, I'd rather get rid of all those separate version numbers >> for all the sub-packages. They may have been useful back in the day, but >> I don't think they're worth the hassle now. Let's just have one CEDET >> version and be done with it. > > ...we could just remove all the version numbers, and call it CEDET 2.0. > > If there are dependencies out there on the version numbers, it > shouldn't be too hard to redirect to the overall cedet version. > > Doing that will be more work than just running my script. I've got > cub-scout overload the next two weeks coming on with a pinewood > derby. Is there a time crunch on this? We cannot do that for the coming release, since the emacs-24 branch has been in a freeze for quite some time now. So please let's first bump the versions, which I'll merge to emacs-24, and then rip out the versioning code, which I can merge to current trunk. -David ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: CEDET version 2013-01-23 20:39 ` David Engster @ 2013-01-31 0:04 ` Eric M. Ludlam 2013-01-31 20:08 ` David Engster 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Eric M. Ludlam @ 2013-01-31 0:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Glenn Morris, emacs-devel On 01/23/2013 03:39 PM, David Engster wrote: > Eric M. Ludlam writes: >>> For the future, I'd rather get rid of all those separate version numbers >>> for all the sub-packages. They may have been useful back in the day, but >>> I don't think they're worth the hassle now. Let's just have one CEDET >>> version and be done with it. >> >> ...we could just remove all the version numbers, and call it CEDET 2.0. >> >> If there are dependencies out there on the version numbers, it >> shouldn't be too hard to redirect to the overall cedet version. >> >> Doing that will be more work than just running my script. I've got >> cub-scout overload the next two weeks coming on with a pinewood >> derby. Is there a time crunch on this? > > We cannot do that for the coming release, since the emacs-24 branch has > been in a freeze for quite some time now. So please let's first bump the > versions, which I'll merge to emacs-24, and then rip out the versioning > code, which I can merge to current trunk. Hi David, In CEDET / bzr repository, change 8466 contains minor version bumping and making the comments match the variables. Thanks Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: CEDET version 2013-01-31 0:04 ` Eric M. Ludlam @ 2013-01-31 20:08 ` David Engster 0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: David Engster @ 2013-01-31 20:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric M. Ludlam; +Cc: emacs-devel Eric M. Ludlam writes: > In CEDET / bzr repository, change 8466 contains minor version bumping > and making the comments match the variables. Thanks. I merged that change to emacs-24. -David ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-01-31 20:08 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2013-01-17 9:57 Emacs pretest 24.2.92 sindikat 2013-01-17 23:38 ` Glenn Morris 2013-01-18 1:59 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2013-01-18 2:09 ` CEDET version [was Re: Emacs pretest 24.2.92] Glenn Morris 2013-01-21 2:20 ` CEDET version Glenn Morris 2013-01-21 19:13 ` David Engster 2013-01-22 2:00 ` Glenn Morris 2013-01-22 4:06 ` Eric M. Ludlam 2013-01-22 19:10 ` Glenn Morris 2013-01-22 22:51 ` Eric M. Ludlam 2013-01-23 7:38 ` David Engster 2013-01-23 13:17 ` Eric M. Ludlam 2013-01-23 20:39 ` David Engster 2013-01-31 0:04 ` Eric M. Ludlam 2013-01-31 20:08 ` David Engster
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).