From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jon Cast Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: No calc in pretest? Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 18:16:08 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <200207042316.g64NG8Y26678@d-ip-129-15-78-125.cs.ou.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1025824677 11805 127.0.0.1 (4 Jul 2002 23:17:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 23:17:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: miles@gnu.org, storm@cua.dk, pot@gnu.org, eliz@is.elta.co.il, burton@openprivacy.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17QFrJ-00034I-00 for ; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 01:17:57 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17QFxW-0005iU-00 for ; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 01:24:22 +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 17QFrT-00080D-00; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 19:18:07 -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 17QFps-0007yK-00; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 19:16:29 -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 g64NG8Y26678; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 18:16:08 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: d-ip-129-15-78-125.cs.ou.edu: jcast owned process doing -bs Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: Message from Richard Stallman of "Thu, 04 Jul 2002 12:24:11 MDT." <200207041824.g64IOBF06432@aztec.santafe.edu> 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:5494 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:5494 Richard Stallman wrote: > Perhaps we can use planned gaps in minor version numbers. For > instance, maybe the next non-bug-fix release should be Emacs 21.10. > That way, we can fix the number now. We certainly won't get past > 21.9 with bug-fix releases. I don't like this idea---leaving gaps in the version numbers would be confusing for users on two counts: 1. Users would think ``hey, they went from 21.3 to 21.10---did I miss something?'' 2. Once users learn we're /intentionally/ leaving gaps in the version numbers, they might suspect we're trying to make it seem like more work is going into Emacs than actually is. That's not good. > This is not fundamentally different from inserting an additional > number after the major version, Why? I think one is less similar to what users expect than the current scheme, while one is more similar. That seems like a fairly fundamental difference. > as if the current version were 21.1.2 and the next non-bug-fix would > be 21.2.1. But it is less of a change than that. Neither one is a big change technically. On the other hand, leaving gaps would, IMO /seem/ like a bigger change to users, and a change for the worse. > Also, we can leave a gap on occasion, but we don't have to do it all > the time. Do you mean we would try to predict when a gap may be needed, and only leave one then? I fear human fallibility in that case. Jon Cast