Re: address@hidden: Re: Possible help with stable Emacs releases.]

[Miles Bader]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 04:11:38PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Anyway, what's wrong with the current scheme that we need to abandon
> it

Because the current scheme is confusing to users.  I've certainly observed
doubt as to whether a new Emacs release "means anything" (i.e. lots of new
features, or just a few random fixes) or not.

> and how does the suggested 3-component scheme improves that to a
> degree that justifies additional work (to fix all those places that
> will need fixing)?

What work?  I saw a similar claim earlier in this thread, grepped around a
bit, and saw no places that seemed to care what the version looks like.  No
doubt there are a few places like the maintenance scripts in admin, but
frankly if it's _only_ that, it's a silly objection -- there's certainly
somebody willing to fix those up.  Lisp packages are really the place that
matters, and as I mentioned, I've seen absolutely no evidence that such a
change would have any adverse impact at all.

I think the suggestion that a third-level component >= 50 mean "development"
is a very reasonable idea to retain that distinction, and in general
following Rob's would seem to result in something that's a lot less clunky
than the current system.

-Miles
-- 
I'm beginning to think that life is just one long Yoko Ono album; no rhyme
or reason, just a lot of incoherent shrieks and then it's over.  --Ian Wolff