* 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber @ 2008-04-12 12:00 Peter Dyballa 2008-04-12 13:10 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-12 12:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-pretest-bug Hello! This file is not deleted by 'make clean', so upon a new build its number is incremented and more and more DOC files get installed. Is this a bug or is there a target that deletes superfluous DOC files? -- Greetings Pete Some day we may discover how to make magnets that can point in any direction. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber 2008-04-12 12:00 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-12 13:10 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-04-12 15:14 ` Peter Dyballa 2008-04-12 16:32 ` Sven Joachim 0 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-12 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Dyballa; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug > From: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE> > Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:00:23 +0200 > Cc: > > This file is not deleted by 'make clean', so upon a new build its > number is incremented and more and more DOC files get installed. I think this is intended, as you still have the Emacs binary from the previous build (emacs-${version}.buildnumber) around, and could use it, e.g., for comparison or some other purpose. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber 2008-04-12 13:10 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-12 15:14 ` Peter Dyballa 2008-04-12 16:43 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-04-12 16:32 ` Sven Joachim 1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-12 15:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug Am 12.04.2008 um 15:10 schrieb Eli Zaretskii: >> From: Peter Dyballa >> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:00:23 +0200 >> Cc: >> >> This file is not deleted by 'make clean', so upon a new build its >> number is incremented and more and more DOC files get installed. > > I think this is intended, as you still have the Emacs binary from the > previous build (emacs-${version}.buildnumber) around, and could use > it, e.g., for comparison or some other purpose. Not when I install or make clean. The installed Emacs wants etc/DOC-$ {version}.<highest buildnumber>, the cleaned (deleted) Emacs cannot want anything. -- Greetings Pete $ sumascii BILL GATES B I L L G A T E S 66+ 73+ 76+ 76+ 71+ 65+ 84+ 69+ 83 = 663 and add 3 because he's Bill Gates the third. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber 2008-04-12 15:14 ` Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-12 16:43 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-04-12 19:41 ` Peter Dyballa 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-12 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Dyballa; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug > Cc: emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org > From: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE> > Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:14:20 +0200 > > > I think this is intended, as you still have the Emacs binary from the > > previous build (emacs-${version}.buildnumber) around, and could use > > it, e.g., for comparison or some other purpose. > > > Not when I install or make clean. The installed Emacs wants etc/DOC-$ > {version}.<highest buildnumber>, the cleaned (deleted) Emacs cannot > want anything. It used to be the case that the built binary was installed under 2 different names: `emacs' and `emacs-${version}.buildnumber', which were both hard links to the same file. Deleting `emacs' would then leave the other one around, and when invoked, it would want the DOC file with the corresponding suffix. Is this no longer the case? That is, does installing a new version completely erases the old one? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber 2008-04-12 16:43 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-12 19:41 ` Peter Dyballa 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-12 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug Am 12.04.2008 um 18:43 schrieb Eli Zaretskii: > It used to be the case that the built binary was installed under 2 > different names: `emacs' and `emacs-${version}.buildnumber', which > were both hard links to the same file. Deleting `emacs' would then > leave the other one around, and when invoked, it would want the DOC > file with the corresponding suffix. Is this no longer the case? This is still the case. > That is, does installing a new version completely erases the old one? Yes. I made an experiment. Around noon I made clean and then updated from CVS, finally made bootstrap. Since etc/DOC-23.0.60.1 was not removed (with both src/emacs and src/emacs-23.0.60.1) I complained, because in the weeks ago it happened that, when this DOC file survived deletion, a new one was created with the buildnumber increased by one either by make or by 'make bootstrap', which was then installed together with etc/emacs-${version}.buildnumber. (The weather was so fine and sunny that I stopped seeing a sense in deleting the file by hand.) After 'make bootstrap' and then 'make clean' these files existed: -rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 2245430 7 Apr 00:42 /usr/local/share/ emacs/23.0.60/etc/DOC-23.0.60.1 -rw-r--r-- 1 pete admin 2243354 12 Apr 14:58 etc/DOC-23.0.60.1 I re-compiled with a simple make and decided to install. Then these files existed: -rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 2243354 12 Apr 20:07 /usr/local/share/ emacs/23.0.60/etc/DOC-23.0.60.1 -rw-r--r-- 1 pete admin 2243354 12 Apr 20:07 etc/DOC -rw-r--r-- 1 pete admin 2243354 12 Apr 20:07 etc/DOC-23.0.60.1 That's really bad! This isn't the same I encountered before a few times! Did someone fix the bug? Or was I doing the wrong thing? So I decided to 'make clean' and 'make bootstrap' again. After more than an hour these files now exist: -rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 2243354 12 Apr 20:07 /usr/local/share/ emacs/23.0.60/etc/DOC-23.0.60.1 -rw-r--r-- 1 pete admin 2243354 12 Apr 21:29 etc/DOC -rw-r--r-- 1 pete admin 2243354 12 Apr 21:29 etc/DOC-23.0.60.1 So it seems that the case is now solved! Although etc/DOC-$ {version}.buildnumber is left and etc/DOC is removed, it does not happen any more that etc/DOC-${version}.<buildnumber + 1> is built, and later potentially installed. My complaint came too late ... Sorry! -- Greetings Pete For some reason, this fortune reminds everyone of Marvin Zelkowitz. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber 2008-04-12 13:10 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-04-12 15:14 ` Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-12 16:32 ` Sven Joachim 2008-04-12 17:24 ` Eli Zaretskii 1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Sven Joachim @ 2008-04-12 16:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, Peter Dyballa On 2008-04-12 15:10 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE> >> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:00:23 +0200 >> Cc: >> >> This file is not deleted by 'make clean', so upon a new build its >> number is incremented and more and more DOC files get installed. > > I think this is intended, as you still have the Emacs binary from the > previous build (emacs-${version}.buildnumber) around, and could use > it, e.g., for comparison or some other purpose. That's not true, the Emacs binaries are all deleted by `make clean'. I had already reported that inconsistency some months before, see my message in [1] and Glenn's reply in [2]. Sven [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-07/msg01778.html [2] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-08/msg00004.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber 2008-04-12 16:32 ` Sven Joachim @ 2008-04-12 17:24 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-04-12 17:54 ` Sven Joachim 2008-04-12 18:55 ` Peter Dyballa 0 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-12 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sven Joachim; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, Peter_Dyballa > From: Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> > Cc: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE>, emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:32:32 +0200 > > On 2008-04-12 15:10 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > >> From: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE> > >> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:00:23 +0200 > >> Cc: > >> > >> This file is not deleted by 'make clean', so upon a new build its > >> number is incremented and more and more DOC files get installed. > > > > I think this is intended, as you still have the Emacs binary from the > > previous build (emacs-${version}.buildnumber) around, and could use > > it, e.g., for comparison or some other purpose. > > That's not true, the Emacs binaries are all deleted by `make clean'. Maybe I completely misunderstand the issue at hand: are we talking about files in the build directory or in the install directory? ("make clean" is relevant to the former, not the latter.) If Peter and you are talking about the build directory, then the previous DOC should probably be removed, but do we really want the build number NOT to be incremented anyway? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber 2008-04-12 17:24 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-12 17:54 ` Sven Joachim 2008-04-12 18:57 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-04-12 19:21 ` Stefan Monnier 2008-04-12 18:55 ` Peter Dyballa 1 sibling, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Sven Joachim @ 2008-04-12 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, Peter_Dyballa On 2008-04-12 19:24 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> >> Cc: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE>, emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org >> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:32:32 +0200 >> >> On 2008-04-12 15:10 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> >> >> From: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE> >> >> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:00:23 +0200 >> >> Cc: >> >> >> >> This file is not deleted by 'make clean', so upon a new build its >> >> number is incremented and more and more DOC files get installed. >> > >> > I think this is intended, as you still have the Emacs binary from the >> > previous build (emacs-${version}.buildnumber) around, and could use >> > it, e.g., for comparison or some other purpose. >> >> That's not true, the Emacs binaries are all deleted by `make clean'. > > Maybe I completely misunderstand the issue at hand: are we talking > about files in the build directory or in the install directory? The build directory. > ("make clean" is relevant to the former, not the latter.) Of course. > If Peter and you are talking about the build directory, then the > previous DOC should probably be removed, but do we really want the > build number NOT to be incremented anyway? I'm not certain I understand that; make clean removes all the emacs* binaries from the build tree and therefore should also remove the then useless DOC-* files. It probably makes sense to reset the build number to 1 after that, doesn't it? Or what do you mean? Sven ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber 2008-04-12 17:54 ` Sven Joachim @ 2008-04-12 18:57 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-04-12 19:00 ` Peter Dyballa 2008-04-12 20:49 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2008-04-12 19:21 ` Stefan Monnier 1 sibling, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-12 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sven Joachim; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, Peter_Dyballa > From: Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> > Cc: Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE, emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:54:11 +0200 > > > If Peter and you are talking about the build directory, then the > > previous DOC should probably be removed, but do we really want the > > build number NOT to be incremented anyway? > > I'm not certain I understand that; make clean removes all the emacs* > binaries from the build tree and therefore should also remove the then > useless DOC-* files. It probably makes sense to reset the build number > to 1 after that, doesn't it? Or what do you mean? I meant that perhaps the build number should grow even after "make clean". ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber 2008-04-12 18:57 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-12 19:00 ` Peter Dyballa 2008-04-12 20:30 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-04-12 20:49 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-12 19:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, Sven Joachim Am 12.04.2008 um 20:57 schrieb Eli Zaretskii: > I meant that perhaps the build number should grow even after "make > clean". Why? -- Greetings Pete Make it simple, as simple as possible but no simpler. – Albert Einstein ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber 2008-04-12 19:00 ` Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-12 20:30 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-04-12 20:59 ` Peter Dyballa 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-12 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Dyballa; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, svenjoac > Cc: Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de>, > emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org > From: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE> > Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 21:00:37 +0200 > > > Am 12.04.2008 um 20:57 schrieb Eli Zaretskii: > > I meant that perhaps the build number should grow even after "make > > clean". > > Why? It's a new build, isn't it? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber 2008-04-12 20:30 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-12 20:59 ` Peter Dyballa 2008-04-13 3:18 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-12 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, svenjoac Am 12.04.2008 um 22:30 schrieb Eli Zaretskii: > It's a new build, isn't it? But from a new and different source code base. -- Greetings Pete These are my principles and if you don't like them... well, I have others. - Groucho Marx ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber 2008-04-12 20:59 ` Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-13 3:18 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-04-13 8:38 ` Peter Dyballa 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-13 3:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Dyballa; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, svenjoac > Cc: svenjoac@gmx.de, > emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org > From: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE> > Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 22:59:26 +0200 > > > Am 12.04.2008 um 22:30 schrieb Eli Zaretskii: > > It's a new build, isn't it? > > > But from a new and different source code base. No, "make clean" by itself doesn't change the sources. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber 2008-04-13 3:18 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-13 8:38 ` Peter Dyballa 2008-04-13 14:07 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-13 8:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, svenjoac Am 13.04.2008 um 05:18 schrieb Eli Zaretskii: >> ut from a new and different source code base. > > No, "make clean" by itself doesn't change the sources. Right, it's me who prepares with a 'make clean' the CVS update to enter a new state. I want to have clean basis before I enter a new cycle. And I don't care what number this cycle has (reaching 100 after one year?). Anyway, 'make clean' expresses something like: "make way for something new." This new does not necessarily depend on new input, like my apartment is still the same when I have swept away all the debris that fell down from my body and clothes etc. This 'make clean' makes place for something new. If I want to have some counter incremented I could 'make increment.' When I make clean I don't want my rent be incremented. -- Greetings Pete ~ o ~_\\_/\ ~ O O ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber 2008-04-13 8:38 ` Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-13 14:07 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-13 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Dyballa; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, svenjoac > Cc: svenjoac@gmx.de, > emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org > From: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE> > Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:38:08 +0200 > > Anyway, 'make clean' expresses something like: "make way for > something new." That's not my interpretation of "make clean". It just means "return to the state we had before configure+make". Also, I don't think "make clean" was designed for anything close to the situation where the files are updated en masse from a VCS. Sounds like you want something like "make cvs-clean" or some such. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber 2008-04-12 18:57 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-04-12 19:00 ` Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-12 20:49 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2008-04-12 21:04 ` Peter Dyballa 1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2008-04-12 20:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, Peter_Dyballa, Sven Joachim Eli Zaretskii writes: > I meant that perhaps the build number should grow even after "make > clean". Yes, it should, unless "make clean" reverts all the source changes that might affect DOC. That "cleaned" build might very well have been installed to preserve it for later comparisons. Then it is very useful to have a convenient unique identifier for each build. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber 2008-04-12 20:49 ` Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2008-04-12 21:04 ` Peter Dyballa 2008-04-12 23:58 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-12 21:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen J. Turnbull; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, Eli Zaretskii, Sven Joachim Am 12.04.2008 um 22:49 schrieb Stephen J. Turnbull: > Then it is very useful to have a convenient unique identifier for > each build. GNU Emacs has this information when you start to send a bug report. Upon configuration some files are overwritten. Upon 'make bootstrap' some more files are overwritten even twice. Upon 'make install' all files (hopefully) are overwritten. Isn't that already enough uniqueness? -- Greetings Pete To most people solutions mean finding the answers. But to chemists solutions are things that are still all mixed up. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber 2008-04-12 21:04 ` Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-12 23:58 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2008-04-12 23:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Dyballa; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, Eli Zaretskii, Sven Joachim Peter Dyballa writes: > > Am 12.04.2008 um 22:49 schrieb Stephen J. Turnbull: > > Then it is very useful to have a convenient unique identifier for > > each build. > > GNU Emacs has this information when you start to send a bug report. > > > Upon configuration some files are overwritten. Upon 'make bootstrap' > some more files are overwritten even twice. Upon 'make install' all > files (hopefully) are overwritten. Isn't that already enough uniqueness? No. Because the files are overwritten, you cannot determine whether the builds are the same or not. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber 2008-04-12 17:54 ` Sven Joachim 2008-04-12 18:57 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-12 19:21 ` Stefan Monnier 1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Stefan Monnier @ 2008-04-12 19:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sven Joachim; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, Eli Zaretskii, Peter_Dyballa > I'm not certain I understand that; make clean removes all the emacs* > binaries from the build tree and therefore should also remove the then > useless DOC-* files. It probably makes sense to reset the build number > to 1 after that, doesn't it? Or what do you mean? Yes, that makes sense. Note that nowadays it's not even clear there's much point in having DOC-<vers>: we could just use a single DOC file: Emacs is able to gracefully react to a DOC file that has been changed. I've been using such a setup for several years now, and occasionally it fails to notice that the file has changed and ends up showing some other docstring than the one intended, but this is rather rare (it happened to me recently and I felt like "Wow, so the practice does agree with the theory after all"). Stefan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber 2008-04-12 17:24 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-04-12 17:54 ` Sven Joachim @ 2008-04-12 18:55 ` Peter Dyballa 1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-12 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, Sven Joachim Am 12.04.2008 um 19:24 schrieb Eli Zaretskii: > Maybe I completely misunderstand the issue at hand: are we talking > about files in the build directory or in the install directory? > ("make clean" is relevant to the former, not the latter.) About both. Because the DOC files in the build tree are also installed. > > If Peter and you are talking about the build directory, then the > previous DOC should probably be removed, but do we really want the > build number NOT to be incremented anyway? I want to have control over this mechanism. Usually I want to have only one build number version (and I don't want to waste time by re- configuring again after a 'make distclean' or such). Because when it happens that I start over, none of the installed superfluous DOC files and Emacs versions are de-installed. This worked until some day in winter, in February, I think. Then the etc/DOC-$ {version}.buildnumber<s> files were saved and new ones with incremented build numbers were created, and sometimes also installed when I did not pay attention. This seems to have changed recently (I am still waiting for a 'make bootstrap' to finish) ... -- Greetings Pete Behold the warranty ... the bold print giveth and the fine print taketh away. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-04-13 14:07 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2008-04-12 12:00 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber Peter Dyballa 2008-04-12 13:10 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-04-12 15:14 ` Peter Dyballa 2008-04-12 16:43 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-04-12 19:41 ` Peter Dyballa 2008-04-12 16:32 ` Sven Joachim 2008-04-12 17:24 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-04-12 17:54 ` Sven Joachim 2008-04-12 18:57 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-04-12 19:00 ` Peter Dyballa 2008-04-12 20:30 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-04-12 20:59 ` Peter Dyballa 2008-04-13 3:18 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-04-13 8:38 ` Peter Dyballa 2008-04-13 14:07 ` Eli Zaretskii 2008-04-12 20:49 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2008-04-12 21:04 ` Peter Dyballa 2008-04-12 23:58 ` Stephen J. Turnbull 2008-04-12 19:21 ` Stefan Monnier 2008-04-12 18:55 ` Peter Dyballa
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).