From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Noam Postavsky Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#25590: Remove build number from emacs-version variable Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 15:24:26 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1svasvru4x.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83r33e8doa.fsf@gnu.org> <83k29372t6.fsf@gnu.org> <838tpj6rej.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1486412713 491 195.159.176.226 (6 Feb 2017 20:25:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 20:25:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 25590@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 06 21:25:06 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1capqU-0008BV-7Q for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 21:25:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50583 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1capqY-0004RU-2H for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 15:25:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60023) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1capqT-0004RN-2N for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 15:25:05 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1capqP-0006kf-Uc for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 15:25:05 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:59897) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1capqP-0006kW-Re for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 15:25:01 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1capqP-0005H9-Lg for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 15:25:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Noam Postavsky Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 20:25:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 25590 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 25590-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B25590.148641267420243 (code B ref 25590); Mon, 06 Feb 2017 20:25:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 25590) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Feb 2017 20:24:34 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58096 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cappy-0005GR-F5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 15:24:34 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-oi0-f49.google.com ([209.85.218.49]:35708) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cappw-0005GE-I6 for 25590@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 15:24:33 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-oi0-f49.google.com with SMTP id j15so53450527oih.2 for <25590@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 12:24:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=AMeqUu6tt+ceR8E3ryAWj3++9jauHqxqJF5YjWitOvY=; b=IUalF6X/Tv3vH72ZmphPPy927lpy1du02U8z55MUstONF6m8uG5SYnBErc3tQp1/Cn C4W0vwJPF8DZP8V/99uJbQEJkcdSA4wHzntbDrDsxzzgFlZR94yl7tx6C91kTsfvhz6U YrthArIG3nwhVphMUfbNKddZy+0mckz3H9PRxfxGK+IZ98a9TUL2eb2oaJ0v2FbfpTAJ eUkra0+EMD5S6qqVIAIDtZZuEzOG8lFluKWdSBn3PyCmuCgOjd9qfdNRyOkd7SmfDoSV 8Cq837DG+BifsTNegKF3dCFl9/E94N0dPC0867iFPi2eU+DhgAWdYjRVLTjOmkPanPNt aYdA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AMeqUu6tt+ceR8E3ryAWj3++9jauHqxqJF5YjWitOvY=; b=lVCDntfMuxXiQDfo1PzJX0O7wXOL8TMU05YPccQWobxPE0sg0nhIsw9lxtvTHS6lBn iS8ufHF4t/8dZgLW5S5qtOjWeN7vvY9J/YQzAewtA7vRYr5R/hfU7twTSI80/2DmF3hD 89fG85rgEvkIINAF4mfGaVb9TZY7wlsk+EwTuE35R3qTxqeGoraI52HKpka5a0dhW7Fg pwnsWo4FfU66nfkU2EbfDdK/oLJbIXJbdXKd2wKmGHydan9REsUGypgiWmZMdMtPk5cz qT6V8OLYFO5TYBAwzeGPKJ277Hp2rWZfEAwoo4xLwecSXJzz3y6EPcYzTTzDYQV8jzB+ kbRA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lGFt8oZucdH2OjmjHrTZsv2HJv4sNuwlRjgLfChArA8QdlT/MIsM6eaQbKI3T8WWnj/UPZlZ/vS0rM6g== X-Received: by 10.202.172.136 with SMTP id v130mr6098045oie.167.1486412666993; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 12:24:26 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.157.21.117 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 12:24:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <838tpj6rej.fsf@gnu.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: xFP2Gx8_re0-bELCMnvYNlTKT2k X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:129042 Archived-At: On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> >> > It's actually part of a version number (which many other projects >> >> > have, e.g., GDB just released version 7.12.1), except that we never >> >> > release such versions, they exist only on end-users' machines. Other >> >> > than that, there's nothing in it which is special to Emacs. >> >> >> >> I don't understand the comparison. A micro version number >> >> (major.minor.micro) is not the same thing as Emacs's build number. >> > >> > I think it is. >> > >> >> GDB 7.12.1 is a public release, the official NEWS file documents the >> differences between that and 7.12. For Emacs, there is no well-defined >> difference between 25.1.1 and 25.1.2, it could be different for every >> person who builds it. > > Isn't that what I said above? Hmm, yeah, I suppose so. I guess this seems like such a big difference in meaning to me that it's a bit absurd to say GDB's micro version is any sense "the same" as Emacs' build number. As in: they are the same except that they are completely different. Putting philosophy aside: the proposal would make the build number look different from a micro version, which should help stop users unfamiliar with Emacs development practice getting confused into thinking that the build number denotes a released version like a micro version does. I think this is a good idea.