[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: |
Fri, 05 Jul 2002 18:07:49 -0500 |
address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) wrote:
> Jon Cast <address@hidden> writes:
<snip>
> > I assume by ``consistent'' you mean ``roughly indicating the
> > feature set by the major/minor version number''? In other words,
> > interpret a major/minor pair as indicating a feature set, and
> > assign each release the major/minor pair indicating its feature
> > set most closely. With that meaning, I think a coherent argument
> > could be made that we should be conservative, and assign each
> > release the largest major/minor pair indicating a feature set
> > /completely containing/ the feature set of the release. That
> > would dictate giving CVS versions the minor number of the
> > preceding release.
> I simply don't follow...
I rather expected that. (I wasn't sure I followed it myself, but I
figured I'd try it.)
> The CVS version is working *towards* the next release, so it should
> have the version number of the release it is going to be eventually.
I agree, because of the argument you give below.
> > For a concrete example, suppose in Emacs 21.5 customize options
> > and groups get a new :file keyword giving a file name to store the
> > option's setting in. (I.e., Tramp could add :file ".tramp" to the
> > tramp defgroup, and Tramp's settings would be stored in ~/.tramp.)
> > Suppose this option were added on 2002 October 23. Now, assume
> > someone is running CVS Emacs as of 2002 October 22 (version
> > 21.5.-99.3). He installs a third-party package you've released,
> > which wants to know if :file is supported, and use it if it is.
> > So, your package tests emacs-minor-version, and determines it is
> > 5. Conclusion: customize supports :file. Reality: customize
> > doesn't support :file. Not good.
> That's not a valid argument IMHO!
> People using the CVS emacs version should be expecting that things
> will break from time to time if they don't update regularly.
That's probably true.
> We cannot and should not be backwards compatible with "yesterday's
> CVS", and there is no reason to be able to differentiate!
You may well be right, and I hereby abandon the idea of giving CVS the
minor version number of the preceding release.
> --
> Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk
Jon Cast
- Re: No calc in pretest?, (continued)
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Miles Bader, 2002/07/04
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Richard Stallman, 2002/07/05
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Jon Cast, 2002/07/05
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Francesco Potorti`, 2002/07/05
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Richard Stallman, 2002/07/08
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Jon Cast, 2002/07/08
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Richard Stallman, 2002/07/09
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Kim F. Storm, 2002/07/04
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Jon Cast, 2002/07/04
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Kim F. Storm, 2002/07/05
- Re: No calc in pretest?,
Jon Cast <=
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Richard Stallman, 2002/07/05
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Jon Cast, 2002/07/05
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Kai Großjohann, 2002/07/05
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Miles Bader, 2002/07/05
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Kai Großjohann, 2002/07/05
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Richard Stallman, 2002/07/05
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Jon Cast, 2002/07/08
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Eli Zaretskii, 2002/07/09
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Richard Stallman, 2002/07/09
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Jon Cast, 2002/07/10