Michael Jarvis wrote: > On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 2:28:34 AM UTC-5, Dominique Pelle wrote: >> Bram Moolenaar wrote: >> >>> I have been wondering if the next release should be called 7.5 or 8. >>> We have quite a few new features, but not that many as with the Vim 7 >>> release. Well, that was a big release. I think the most important >>> addition since then is persistent undo in 7.3. Now we have more new >>> features than in 7.3 or 7.4. 7.1 and 7.2 were mostly bug fixes. >> 8.0 or 7.5 is a bit arbitrary without conventions such as: >> - major version number increased when breaking backward >> compatibility (which should be rare) >> - middle version number increased when adding new features >> - minor version increased for bug fixes > I informally think of Vim by putting the patch number as a third minor > version, similar to the "Semantic Versioning" standard (http://semver.org/) > that we use at my place of employment. > > For example, instead of "Vim 7.4, patches 1-1726," I mentally think, "Vim > 7.4.1726". > > Maybe it's time to make this an official nomenclature? > > This does break the model where some people selectively cherry-pick patches, > and use something like, "Vim 7.4 with patches 1-5,9-33,1024-1726." In the > "old days", sometimes people lacked quality Internet access to the old CVS > repository and would have to manually patch their Vim source code from the > emailed diffs. If they were only concerned with Vim on a given architecture, > they could theoretically skip patches that didn't apply to them. > > I would argue that number one, this is NOT a good idea, because the source > code changes are cumulative. Trying to do regression testing on 7.4 plus > every combination of the current 1726 patches would be nearly impossible to > implement and manage. I think you should always apply ALL the patches, even > the ones that might not apply to your situation, just to avoid side effects. > > Number two, I don't think this use case still applies. I doubt that very many > people still download a tarball of the Vim 7.4 source code, and then manually > apply each and every diff based on the email attachments from Bram. I could > be wrong, but Internet access is more common now, and ever since we switched > to first Mercurial and now Git it has become very easy to get the latest > "snapshot" of the code. > I did -- because patch #866 broke a plugin I use. Fortuitously, a (much) later patch fixed the problem, so I'm now using Git.
Regards, Chip Campbell -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
