From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: strange emacs 21.4 on ftp.gnu.org:/pub/gnu/emacs Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:40:57 +0100 Message-ID: References: <73766b120502070245671f77ee@mail.gmail.com> <87brawmmzp.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <87oeewl61w.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1107794881 14174 80.91.229.2 (7 Feb 2005 16:48:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 16:48:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juan LEON Lahoz Garcia , emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, "Kim F. Storm" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 07 17:48:00 2005 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CyC37-00077U-W0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:47:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CyCHH-0002IF-MQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:02:23 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1CyCEB-0000kn-Cz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:59:13 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1CyCE5-0000fY-0r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:59:05 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CyCE4-0000dh-K2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:59:04 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CyBwg-0000ro-NI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:41:06 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CyBtJ-000405-7W; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:37:37 -0500 Original-To: Stefan Monnier In-Reply-To: <87oeewl61w.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> (Stefan Monnier's message of "Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:57:21 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org X-MailScanner-To: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:33021 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:33021 Stefan Monnier writes: >>> Am I the only one who finds himself very much surprised that even >>> though he's a fairly active contributor and reads emacs-devel, >>> emacs-pretest-bug, gnu.emacs.help, gnus.emacs.bug, >>> gnu.emacs.announce, and a few more places, he has not seen any >>> announcement (let alone discussion) of this new release? > >> This question is rhetorical. > > Partly. But maybe I had missed the announcement/discussion. > >> It would not appear, however, that either of our opinions would have >> any relevance, anyway, so we might just stop musing about such things. > [...] >> I propose that we now, where another renaming of everything has >> seemingly become necessary, decide to call the next major release > > Your first two lines above should make it clear to you that the > second two lines would be a waste of time. The work to rename versions throughout a release to arrive at a consistent set is nontrivial and nothing that I expect a single person to do in the time frame for an emergency release such as the latest one we have seen. And an emergency release is unlikely to occur from the trunk. Under the premise that 21.4 as a release number is here to stay, version numbers all over the trunk will have to be changed, again. IIRC, it was a work of several days for a single volunteer last time. This work is not immediately tied to a release. If the release system/scripts don't accommodate emergency releases like 21.3a, as established facts make it appear, then it would seem that we better keep 21.5 off from both announcements and code, as the number might be needed sooner than anticipated. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum