Re: CEDET version

[Eric M. Ludlam]

On 01/23/2013 02:38 AM, David Engster wrote:
> Eric M. Ludlam writes:
> > Ah, thanks for clarifying.  I hadn't realized the comment and variable
> > were going out of sync.  A side-effect of using an incomplete script.
> > I can update the script to keep those in sync in the future the CEDET
> > repository.  The variable is the correct version.
> >
> > I'm not certain about the 'beta' though.  I usually put a number after
> > the beta, like 2.1beta1 or some such.
>
> OK, but what should be done now?
>
> If you bump the numbers in CEDET upstream to a stable version, I can
> merge that change to the emacs-24 branch.

Ok.  There were pretty big changes in the file system and merges across 
all the parts of CEDET to warrant a version bump.

Or...

> For the future, I'd rather get rid of all those separate version numbers
> for all the sub-packages. They may have been useful back in the day, but
> I don't think they're worth the hassle now. Let's just have one CEDET
> version and be done with it.

...we could just remove all the version numbers, and call it CEDET 2.0.

If there are dependencies out there on the version numbers, it shouldn't 
be too hard to redirect to the overall cedet version.

Doing that will be more work than just running my script.  I've got 
cub-scout overload the next two weeks coming on with a pinewood derby. 
Is there a time crunch on this?

Eric