On 16 Mar 07, at 1:35 PM 16 Mar 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
I agree with Brett, this is a 2.1 change, not a 2.0.x
Do you fully understand what the current behavior is and what this
patch fixes? You are essentially condemning users to complete
unpredictability. I really think that a build should be staged and
explain to users what the change is and let people build with it. If
we don't get enough feedback or there is a consensus that they think
it's not good then we don't put it in. But we already have many users
who are suffering and asking for this to be the default behavior.
Jason.
Now as Jochen says, nothing prevents pushing stuff from 2.1 to 2.2 and
get an earlier 2.1, i though we were going to do it anyway.
On 3/16/07, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/16/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Our users must be able to trust point releases are safe upgrades.
> Let's start moving on putting out 2.1 milestone releases instead.
Agreed. On the other hand, most others seem to consider this
change important.
So, why not simply renaming 2.0.6 to 2.1 and 2.1 to 2.2? Should
satisfy all.
Jochen
--
Emacs 22 will support MacOS and CygWin. It is not yet decided,
whether
these will be used to run Emacs or the other way round.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
