Just now, Robby Findler wrote:
> So, IIUC, Ryan should have used
>
> 5.91.0.1
>
> as the version number on the release branch?
Yes.
(Part of this is probably the result of the poor estimate that the
Emacs code does for creating the checklist template -- mostly because
I originally intended
So, IIUC, Ryan should have used
5.91.0.1
as the version number on the release branch?
Robby
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Yesterday, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > At Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:56:45 -0500, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> > > On 11/25/2013 09:44 AM, Matthew Flatt wrot
Yesterday, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:56:45 -0500, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> > On 11/25/2013 09:44 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > > Here's the full comment:
> > >
> > > The version string has one of the forms:
> > >X.Y
> > >X.Y.Z Z != 0
> > >X.Y.Z.W
On 11/25/2013 10:28 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:56:45 -0500, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 11/25/2013 09:44 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
Here's the full comment:
The version string has one of the forms:
X.Y
X.Y.Z Z != 0
X.Y.Z.W W != 0
where ea
At Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:56:45 -0500, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> On 11/25/2013 09:44 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > Here's the full comment:
> >
> > The version string has one of the forms:
> >X.Y
> >X.Y.Z Z != 0
> >X.Y.Z.W W != 0
> > where each X, Y, Z, W is a non-ne
On 11/25/2013 09:44 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
Here's the full comment:
The version string has one of the forms:
X.Y
X.Y.Z Z != 0
X.Y.Z.W W != 0
where each X, Y, Z, W is a non-negative exact integer, Y must not
exceed 99, and Z or W must not exceed 999. Y>=9
Here's the full comment:
The version string has one of the forms:
X.Y
X.Y.Z Z != 0
X.Y.Z.W W != 0
where each X, Y, Z, W is a non-negative exact integer, Y must not
exceed 99, and Z or W must not exceed 999. Y>=90 means that this is
working towards {X+1}.0, and
I was going by the comment at the top of
/racket/src/racket/src/schvers.h, which says
X.Y.Z.W
...
Y>=90 means that this is working towards {X+1}.0,
and X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for {X+1}.0
I can change the version number, but if it's causing problems, let's
figure out the rul
My reading of the code suggests the first problem is that the version
number should have been 5.91.0.1 not 5.91.0.0 but I can't recall what we
usually do to know if that's right or not. It looks like the code was last
changed in 2008 so I guess the version number is what's wrong.
The second proble
Ryan Culpepper writes:
> The release process for v6.0 has begun: the `release' branch was
> created for any work that is left and is now bumped to v5.91. You
> can go on using the `master' branch as usual, it is now bumped to
> v6.0.0.1 (to avoid having two different trees with the same version
At Fri, 22 Nov 2013 05:10:14 +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> It would be nice to change location of "config.rktd" file.
>
> "config.rktd" looks like it cannot be changed by user at run time in any
> meaningful way. Thus it doesn't belong to sysconfdir.
> It should be placed into libdir instead.
I
Ryan Culpepper writes:
> >> NOW IS THE TIME TO FIX BUGS THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT <<<
It would be nice to change location of "config.rktd" file.
"config.rktd" looks like it cannot be changed by user at run time in any
meaningful way. Thus it doesn't belong to sysconfdir.
It should be placed int
The release process for v6.0 has begun: the `release' branch was
created for any work that is left and is now bumped to v5.91. You
can go on using the `master' branch as usual, it is now bumped to
v6.0.0.1 (to avoid having two different trees with the same version).
If you have any bug-fixes and
13 matches
Mail list logo
