From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ken Manheimer Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [ELPA] New package: multishell Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 15:29:40 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87a8om1kas.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d0ce625ea26052887fcff X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1451939423 9721 80.91.229.3 (4 Jan 2016 20:30:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 20:30:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel To: Artur Malabarba Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 04 21:30:23 2016 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 1aGBlj-0000yX-Cd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2016 21:30:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46994 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aGBlf-0005U9-2w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2016 15:30:15 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40716) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aGBlR-0005Ti-EK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2016 15:30:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aGBlQ-0007x3-Hm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2016 15:30:01 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ob0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230]:36330) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aGBlQ-0007wA-5x for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2016 15:30:00 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-ob0-x230.google.com with SMTP id ba1so257562414obb.3 for ; Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:30:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=qoplDRm34k0dUHUh7e0ZVmRDip9ZP3DqOAXCZeYQwGI=; b=Yr4s2uU1qbXv3KYCSoW94NmKiK8+y3CfeovVsbQH+gxe40aRiCZfD0nGSfiadTIG+h udIJw+dmHEnnIETItRkRWkYwnieHPUN2CdUfVNRri1J/R05VtZCiuvRVim5uCTDi35k8 SW/hZfcb4OypkHlRwrB+MtiRRfZ6ZPl85iNiFaLwTqMmHuppRTf5KFXhQmnLTjJqZvwe bsx0Asl88enju8/yv0mrA3Q5y7PHr52d3SWoqvCp9EzI+9r6jAY5IrwNauoIU4F8gEJH 6U1gaaq8zUfnwf/JpLY5sNRowAm7NyQmw67cXn5a6/2EV043b4/0YXRwBTqqv3XGYOiS RP8A== X-Received: by 10.60.57.168 with SMTP id j8mr2404115oeq.28.1451939399590; Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:29:59 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.202.187.6 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 12:29:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230 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:197624 Archived-At: --089e013d0ce625ea26052887fcff Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Ken Manheimer wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Artur Malabarba > wrote: > >> I don't see any problem. The only thing that comes to mind is that, if >> you don't want people to get used to the current version then you might >> want to remove the package from Elpa for the moment. >> >> I'm not sure if setting the version number to 0 will do that, or if it'll >> only prevent further updates. >> > Ah! I didn't think it was yet released to ELPA - I don't see it in the > packages list. I'm uncertain whether or not you see that it actually is > release - could you let me know whether or not it is, and if it is I'll > move it aside, one way or another. > Never mind - I think I've settled the change, and pushed it to the repository with a version number incremented so it should be released, instead of any prior versions. I still don't know whether or not the absence in list-packages means it wasn't already released, but that shouldn't matter now that a ready version is in place. --089e013d0ce625ea26052887fcff Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Ken Manheimer <ken.= manheimer@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't see any problem. T= he only thing that comes to mind is that, if you don't want people to g= et used to the current version then you might want to remove the package fr= om Elpa for the moment.

I'm not sure if setting the version number to 0 will do that, or if it&= #39;ll only prevent further updates.

Ah! I didn't think it was yet released t= o ELPA - I don't see it in the packages list. I'm uncertain whether= or not you see that it actually is release - could you let me know whether= or not it is, and if it is I'll move it aside, one way or another.=C2= =A0
Neve= r mind - I think I've settled the change, and pushed it to the reposito= ry with a version number incremented so it should be released, instead of a= ny prior versions. I still don't know whether or not the absence in lis= t-packages means it wasn't already released, but that shouldn't mat= ter now that a ready version is in place.
--089e013d0ce625ea26052887fcff--