[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [SPAM] Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration

From: Joel E. Denny
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: [updated PATCH] %language declaration
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 03:24:16 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Paul Eggert wrote:

> "Joel E. Denny" <address@hidden> writes:
> > I'm not sure exactly how the tarball is rolled for Bison, but in many 
> > projects a failed `make check' prevents the tarball from being rolled.  
> > Or is it `make maintainer-check' in our case?
> That's where I do it, yes.

Do you use `make alpha', `make distcheck', or something else to roll the 

> To be honest I'd rather not have yet another thing that needs to be
> updated every release.

It wouldn't need to be.  We would write something like 2.3a+ in the manual 
only where we mean to refer to the next release.  Once we're ready to roll 
that next release, we may decide that it's called 2.3b.  At that point, 
we'll be forced to update the 2.3a+ in the manual to 2.3b.  For releases 
after 2.3b, we'll most likely not have to update this point in the manual 
again since it already refers 2.3b as desired.

> Can we reword this documentation to not need
> the version number?

That implies that we should never refer to the next release in the manual.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]