From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: No calc in pretest? Date: 02 Jul 2002 23:42:53 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <5xbs9perhe.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> References: <200207022030.g62KUiB19267@d-ip-129-15-78-125.cs.ou.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1025642698 19873 127.0.0.1 (2 Jul 2002 20:44:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 20:44:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Francesco Potorti` , Eli Zaretskii , burton@openprivacy.org, Emacs Devel Mailing List Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17PUW9-0005AQ-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 22:44:57 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17PUbL-0004Sl-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 22:50:19 +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 17PUWO-0005jF-00; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:45:12 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.filanet.dk ([195.215.206.179]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17PUTZ-0004Xe-00; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:42:17 -0400 Original-Received: from kfs2.cua.dk.cua.dk (unknown [10.1.82.3]) by mail.filanet.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 7AF917C016; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 20:42:15 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: Jon Cast In-Reply-To: <200207022030.g62KUiB19267@d-ip-129-15-78-125.cs.ou.edu> Original-Lines: 23 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 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:5364 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:5364 Jon Cast writes: > > We could also call the development snapshots 21.4.50, 21.4.51, etc. > Even better would be 21.4.50.yyyymmdd, IMO (also, yyyymmdd makes it > abundantly clear it's a snapshot, even to people who don't understand > the Linux numbering scheme.) I like this idea! But I think we should number snapshots -- including pretests -- as 21.5.0.yyyymmdd Then the major and minor number for the pretest and snapshots would be the same as for the actual release. The current scheme suffers from the problem that the minor number is off by one... -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk