[PATCH] Re: [STYLE] :version tags in defcustom definitions (was: [PATCH] Improve look of agenda on graphical displays)

Timothy writes: >>> Sure. Just trying to clarify my confusion. The inconsistency with some >>> defcustoms using :version and some not is bugging me. >> >> Agreed. It would be better to be consistent with this. > > Given that org-mode is distributed separately to Emacs, and I get the >

Re: [STYLE] :version tags in defcustom definitions (was: [PATCH] Improve look of agenda on graphical displays)

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 10:23 AM Timothy wrote: > > Hi Ihor and Stefan, > > >> Sure. Just trying to clarify my confusion. The inconsistency with some > >> defcustoms using :version and some not is bugging me. > > > > Agreed. It would be better to be consistent with this. > > Given that org-mode

Re: [STYLE] :version tags in defcustom definitions (was: [PATCH] Improve look of agenda on graphical displays)

Hi Ihor and Stefan, >> Sure. Just trying to clarify my confusion. The inconsistency with some >> defcustoms using :version and some not is bugging me. > > Agreed. It would be better to be consistent with this. Given that org-mode is distributed separately to Emacs, and I get the impression

[STYLE] :version tags in defcustom definitions (was: [PATCH] Improve look of agenda on graphical displays)

Stefan Kangas writes: >> I am wondering if this is meaningful considering that Org is not always >> distributed together with Emacs. Will this :version tag make any sense >> for people using the newest Org with older Emacs versions? > > I think it won't really, but that's okay. Also, this is

Re: [STYLE] :version tags in defcustom definitions (was: [PATCH] Improve look of agenda on graphical displays)

Ihor Radchenko writes: > Sure. Just trying to clarify my confusion. The inconsistency with some > defcustoms using :version and some not is bugging me. Agreed. It would be better to be consistent with this.