From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: No calc in pretest? Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:40:33 +0300 (IDT) Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1025628286 17080 127.0.0.1 (2 Jul 2002 16:44:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 16:44:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 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 17PQli-0004RN-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 18:44:46 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17PQqo-0007MQ-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 18:50:03 +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 17PQm0-0007zU-00; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 12:45:04 -0400 Original-Received: from is.elta.co.il ([199.203.121.2]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17PQjo-0006qH-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 12:42:49 -0400 Original-Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA13949; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:40:33 +0300 (IDT) X-Sender: eliz@is Original-To: Simon Josefsson In-Reply-To: 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:5335 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:5335 On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Simon Josefsson wrote: > One reason is that we don't have to update :version fields and > documentation if there is a well defined versioning scheme. I sincerely doubt that the version-update problem will go away with _any_ versioning scheme. If we want to solve this annoyance, we should find a solution for it that doesn't require manual work when versions change numbers. > Releasing CVS HEAD > as 21.4 would be a mistake, as users would think "Pah, emacs 21.4, I > already have 21.2 and it works, I won't bother upgrading.". I'd expect them to read NEWS first (it's normally linked from the Emacs Web page), and only then make up their minds. > Having faster development cycles has always been one of my gripes with > emacs, new features shouldn't have to wait 3-4 years. I'd say that's an exaggeration: not even 1 year has passed since v21.1, so new features in CVS head now could be available within the next 6 months, say. That's slightly more than 1 year since 21.1, the last non-bugfix release.