From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Jon Cast <jcast@ou.edu>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: No calc in pretest?
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 15:51:26 -0500
Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
Message-ID: <200207022051.g62KpQE19374@d-ip-129-15-78-125.cs.ou.edu>
References: <monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1025643220 21243 127.0.0.1 (2 Jul 2002 20:53:40 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 20:53:40 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>, burton@openprivacy.org,
   Emacs Devel Mailing List <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
Return-path: <emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian))
	id 17PUeZ-0005WW-00
	for <emacs-devel@main.gmane.org>; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 22:53:39 +0200
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164])
	by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 17PUjl-0004eq-00
	for <emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org>; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 22:59:01 +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 17PUey-0006Cm-00; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:54:04 -0400
Original-Received: from d-ip-129-15-78-125.cs.ou.edu ([129.15.78.125])
	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian))
	id 17PUcm-00065e-00
	for <emacs-devel@gnu.org>; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:51:48 -0400
Original-Received: from ou.edu (jcast@localhost)
	by d-ip-129-15-78-125.cs.ou.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g62KpQE19374;
	Tue, 2 Jul 2002 15:51:26 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: d-ip-129-15-78-125.cs.ou.edu: jcast owned process doing -bs
Original-To: Stefan Monnier <monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu>
In-Reply-To: Message from Stefan Monnier <monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu>
   of "Tue, 02 Jul 2002 15:54:13 EDT." <200207021954.g62JsDK19668@rum.cs.yale.edu>
Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Emacs development discussions. <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel/>
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:5367
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:5367

Stefan Monnier <monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu> wrote:
<snip>
> As I said, I don't really buy that argument.  We'd still have this
> info since 22.2 would be a bugfix release (i.e. a minor change) over
> 22.1.  We just wouldn't be able to differentiate between "major" and
> "really major", but as I pointed out, this has already been the case
> in the past, if you look at how the 19.x versions evolved.  There
> was no easy way to tell if a new version was just a bugfix, a minor
> improvement or a major step forward.

My scheme allows us to differentiate `major' and `really major'.  The
fact we haven't had this information before doesn't seem to me like a
terribly compelling reason not to provide it now.

<snip>

> For the record, I don't have any objection to using 3-part revisions.
> I just find that keeping the same 2-part revisions but just
> bumping the first number more often is simpler.

Simpler, yes.  But not much simpler--probably not enough to make that
any advantage.

> 	Stefan

Jon Cast