Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I don't want us to get into that mess again -- so I want a scheme >> where the next release number is _fixed_ from the start. > > I have no idea what you're talking about.
Which part of the sentense is difficult to understand? > > The problems caused by the current "mess" (21.4 released to mean > something else, 22.1 chosen for next release) would have happened > regardless of what scheme was chosen (including all of your wacky > ones), Stefan suggested 2.5 years ago to name the trunk version 22.1. Your response was: > From: Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 03 Jul 2002 00:20:19 +0900 > > "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > We could simply decide that RC versions will be 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 21.4 > > and the next trunk version will be 22.1 (at which point it will be on its > > own branch for 22.2, 22.3, 22.4, ...). > > No, that would be silly. Emacs has a good history of changes in the > major version number really meaning that major changes were made; we > shouldn't screw that up unless it's for a very good reason (and I > haven't seen one presented yet). > > -Miles Silly? > because what occured is that an extra real release was added in > between the last real release and the designated next real release. Some of us saw it coming -- and you called us silly. And now I'm called wacky. Nice vocabulary, Miles. > No amount of futzing around with pre-release names would have changed > that. True -- that's not the main issue. If you read my mail carefully, I'm discussing two issues: - preventing the current mess (always use MM.1 for trunk releases and MM.N (N > 1) for bug fixes from the RC_MM branch -- as Stefan wisely suggested back then. - finding a scheme for development and pretest naming that uses MM.1-something rather than _a completely different_ version number which MM.0-something is IMO. > The questions, as I understand it, are merely (1) how to call real > releases, and (2) how to call pre-releases. That's what I'm talking about! > > For the next release at least, it's been decided that (1) will be > "22.1"; what I understand JÃrÃme to have meant is that (2) in this > case should be "22.0.x", where x = 1, 2, 3, ... _IF_ we stick to 22.0-something for dev and pretest, I definitely prefer if we keep the current scheme of 22.0.50 and 22.0.90... rather than inventing something new. As I said, I'll use 22.0.50 when I change things later today. -- Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.cua.dk _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
