From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eric M. Ludlam" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: CEDET version Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:51:12 -0500 Message-ID: <50FF17E0.8090208@siege-engine.com> References: <87txqgjfmx.fsf@mail36.net> <9c38xzv0q7.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <76ehhjw8bb.fsf_-_@fencepost.gnu.org> <87wqv62vu1.fsf@engster.org> <0ca9s2ht87.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <50FE1044.1010307@siege-engine.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1358895082 7747 80.91.229.3 (22 Jan 2013 22:51:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:51:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 22 23:51:41 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Txmgu-0005Qp-Rb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:51:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39519 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Txmgd-0005N0-QU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:51:23 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60867) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Txmga-0005Lw-Oi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:51:22 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TxmgZ-00028C-Hx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:51:20 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-vb0-f49.google.com ([209.85.212.49]:49359) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TxmgW-00027Z-TJ; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:51:16 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-vb0-f49.google.com with SMTP id s24so5684736vbi.22 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:51:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8AIobpOAGmR8pvVTeGMMpjipnwrjZLJSIqG5AK4RASs=; b=A9aLvB2X6UDxKh2+hcOEGvQ/hdmcYNsLQBx6KfuvAu4JrftA/otHxsceXqIywfCds+ N5iOVrKEI0qwOd9DCFV+N3jpqwow1J3q54MGMMfxMAhRESLyiQYcucGckXylaO2PTpRh 1I26xr/XuhRmcmOlarpMcuf+UxXDDB3lTJeWJcF8lf+63hPchK/b0DQOZCbdETuocJKo CvhFIF21Bp8t+qgyWIDg8Ek5dqUdS1Jxe5PQGe9iDdyYIejO/PX0V9haZx72izEpx2DG yq3PCAyzR+9fWgQ0wwriOHjs9aaMDoFZtmu7Y/4fNyiZj/vOQzHnPOs1HtpIU4Z9LDYv mmVg== X-Received: by 10.52.33.143 with SMTP id r15mr22263274vdi.78.1358895076122; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:51:16 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.201] (pool-72-74-140-235.bstnma.fios.verizon.net. [72.74.140.235]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z10sm10354020vds.17.2013.01.22.14.51.13 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:51:14 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.3a1pre) Gecko/20091222 Shredder/3.1a1pre In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.212.49 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:156590 Archived-At: 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