From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Corwin Brust Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: windows Emacs-version issue Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 18:05:03 -0500 Message-ID: References: <857d70m4xd.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="3610"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Glenn Morris , Sivaram Neelakantan , Emacs developers To: Stefan Monnier , Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat May 07 01:05:56 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nn71H-0000h0-Ry for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 07 May 2022 01:05:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36758 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nn71G-0001OV-CH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 06 May 2022 19:05:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53538) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nn70f-0000d3-Dl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 May 2022 19:05:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ej1-f41.google.com ([209.85.218.41]:41860) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nn70d-0007of-KG; Fri, 06 May 2022 19:05:16 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ej1-f41.google.com with SMTP id dk23so16984622ejb.8; Fri, 06 May 2022 16:05:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UqEHvsy3k+UsCrHT3gTa+jp9YoqwqzVQEbDgqNecQBY=; b=sH917VbmFmz0BFNvCdauVfRWccxsNnq5Ecc+KXIL5DucW+huaaPQoamWCMZST8Bn2m KPNLQwd/ZLXTUpJkckNU7VZbq+HR5H+9BzLTJJ+xyJHv7zKLlL+s8Got+ThBqT21odXP wqhLIIobOf+8NyGNO+syRwvS6WWAinXG1rSsv/kqId0dqCD//aetH82bGixZ1updoa+c XatBpXfbdVR6FgixKKn93mzooS5K3yB/6/vMzPbyzUhYQ2mxNDQwuhadAxqSOEe8fci9 7mxCkZ9vykLEsZlH/PKV5ozraOh1LK3s00dv5+RlzjPda7oPV82TWA7LtkxXC45UUV37 Jk3g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531BbKkSWtHtcYkcH6dXMkImWxmoMi/smZx9goLP/ht2uOHgMnMp WGtUnRXdq/GK3rlwkm7MWBoMyLb1/7BaF+/PdUA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwLU5rpJjcrLeI5Dtve3MPRUgsszo4vh3ggL+x3MOKhr88jdYrwJqG/sJOyCKmSXYGhw1HlNfk07fln21WEDlw= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:6d26:b0:6f4:bba2:ebbb with SMTP id sa38-20020a1709076d2600b006f4bba2ebbbmr5070028ejc.699.1651878313309; Fri, 06 May 2022 16:05:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.218.41; envelope-from=mplscorwin@gmail.com; helo=mail-ej1-f41.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -13 X-Spam_score: -1.4 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:289346 Archived-At: On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 4:24 PM Stefan Monnier wrote: > > How the new name is generated doesn't matter too much, so just try and > find something that won't bring up too many questions or confusion. > I've often seen "-N" being used for that, so it could be > `emacs-28.1-2.zip` or `emacs-28.1-build2.zip`. I'd object to adding numbers without explanation to the end of the file names but I could live with adding a -buildNN suffix. TBH, I really don't see the point. Each version of a release file is properly described as "the given version of Emacs without any build issues we know of that aren't open in Debbugs". But I understand that view may be myopic. I could live with this. Eli, Do you agree with the proposal to rename Window binary releases as described?