[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: No calc in pretest?
From: |
Jon Cast |
Subject: |
Re: No calc in pretest? |
Date: |
Tue, 02 Jul 2002 15:51:26 -0500 |
Stefan Monnier <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> wrote:
<snip>
> As I said, I don't really buy that argument. We'd still have this
> info since 22.2 would be a bugfix release (i.e. a minor change) over
> 22.1. We just wouldn't be able to differentiate between "major" and
> "really major", but as I pointed out, this has already been the case
> in the past, if you look at how the 19.x versions evolved. There
> was no easy way to tell if a new version was just a bugfix, a minor
> improvement or a major step forward.
My scheme allows us to differentiate `major' and `really major'. The
fact we haven't had this information before doesn't seem to me like a
terribly compelling reason not to provide it now.
<snip>
> For the record, I don't have any objection to using 3-part revisions.
> I just find that keeping the same 2-part revisions but just
> bumping the first number more often is simpler.
Simpler, yes. But not much simpler--probably not enough to make that
any advantage.
> Stefan
Jon Cast
- Re: No calc in pretest?, (continued)
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Kim F. Storm, 2002/07/02
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Jon Cast, 2002/07/02
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Kim F. Storm, 2002/07/02
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Jon Cast, 2002/07/02
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Kim F. Storm, 2002/07/03
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Jon Cast, 2002/07/03
Re: No calc in pretest?, Stefan Monnier, 2002/07/02
Re: No calc in pretest?, Jon Cast, 2002/07/02
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Eli Zaretskii, 2002/07/03
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Jon Cast, 2002/07/03
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Eli Zaretskii, 2002/07/04
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Jon Cast, 2002/07/04
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Eli Zaretskii, 2002/07/05
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Jon Cast, 2002/07/05