Re: Updating release version to 22.1

[storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm)]

Miles Bader <snogglethorpe@gmail.com> writes:

>> I don't want us to get into that mess again -- so I want a scheme
>> where the next release number is _fixed_ from the start.
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about.

Which part of the sentense is difficult to understand?

>
> The problems caused by the current "mess" (21.4 released to mean
> something else, 22.1 chosen for next release) would have happened
> regardless of what scheme was chosen (including all of your wacky
> ones),

Stefan suggested 2.5 years ago to name the trunk version 22.1.

Your response was:

> From: Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
> In-Reply-To: <200207021509.g62F9l617691@rum.cs.yale.edu>
> Message-ID: <87n0taupfw.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp>
> Date: 03 Jul 2002 00:20:19 +0900
>  
> "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu> writes:
> > We could simply decide that RC versions will be 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 21.4
> > and the next trunk version will be 22.1 (at which point it will be on its
> > own branch for 22.2, 22.3, 22.4, ...).
>  
> No, that would be silly.  Emacs has a good history of changes in the
> major version number really meaning that major changes were made; we
> shouldn't screw that up unless it's for a very good reason (and I
> haven't seen one presented yet).
>  
> -Miles

Silly?  


>        because what occured is that an extra real release was added in
> between the last real release and the designated next real release.

Some of us saw it coming -- and you called us silly.

And now I'm called wacky.  Nice vocabulary, Miles.

> No amount of futzing around with pre-release names would have changed
> that.

True -- that's not the main issue.  

If you read my mail carefully, I'm discussing two issues:

- preventing the current mess (always use MM.1 for trunk releases
  and MM.N (N > 1) for bug fixes from the RC_MM branch -- as
  Stefan wisely suggested back then.

- finding a scheme for development and pretest naming that
  uses MM.1-something rather than _a completely different_ version
  number which MM.0-something is IMO.


> The questions, as I understand it, are merely (1) how to call real
> releases, and (2) how to call pre-releases.

That's what I'm talking about!

>
> For the next release at least, it's been decided that (1) will be
> "22.1"; what I understand Jérôme to have meant is that (2) in this
> case should be "22.0.x", where x = 1, 2, 3, ...

_IF_ we stick to 22.0-something for dev and pretest, I definitely
prefer if we keep the current scheme of 22.0.50 and 22.0.90...
rather than inventing something new.

As I said, I'll use 22.0.50 when I change things later today.

--
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk