From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: No calc in pretest? Date: 01 Jul 2002 10:55:23 +0900 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1025488806 22630 127.0.0.1 (1 Jul 2002 02:00:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 02:00:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Jon Cast , 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 17OqU1-0005ss-00 for ; Mon, 01 Jul 2002 04:00:05 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17OqYL-0005R9-00 for ; Mon, 01 Jul 2002 04:04:34 +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 17OqU0-0006uh-00; Sun, 30 Jun 2002 22:00:04 -0400 Original-Received: from tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp ([202.32.8.214]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17OqSe-0006pF-00; Sun, 30 Jun 2002 21:58:40 -0400 Original-Received: from mailgate4.nec.co.jp ([10.7.69.195]) by TYO201.gate.nec.co.jp (8.11.6/3.7W01080315) with ESMTP id g611vxR02387; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:57:59 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mailsv.nec.co.jp (mailgate51.nec.co.jp [10.7.69.190]) by mailgate4.nec.co.jp (8.11.6/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) with ESMTP id g611vwa17742; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:57:59 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mcsss2.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp ([10.30.114.133]) by mailsv.nec.co.jp (8.11.6/3.7W-MAILSV-NEC) with ESMTP id g611tS404750; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:57:57 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (mcspd15 [10.30.114.174]) by mcsss2.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (8.10.2+Sun/3.7Wlsi_mx_6.0) with ESMTP id g611tNK16129; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:55:23 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (Postfix, from userid 31295) id 6FC9537C8; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:55:23 +0900 (JST) Original-To: Eli Zaretskii System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu Blat: Foop In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 20 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:5284 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:5284 Eli Zaretskii writes: > Personally, I don't see what's the fuss about the version numbering > (other packages, such as Texinfo, do the same as Emacs), but that's > just me. I think moving to more conventional version numbers (e.g. adding a new level for `minor releases') would be a good thing, because it tells users what they're getting without them having to download the whole package first. Since emacs is a _very large_ download, this is actually somewhat important (many people don't want to download a minor bugfix release if they're happy with what they've got). I agree that it would entail a bit of work to implement, but I doubt it's really that much... -Miles -- "Most attacks seem to take place at night, during a rainstorm, uphill, where four map sheets join." -- Anon. British Officer in WW I