Re: Autoconf version number after 2.70

[Zack Weinberg]

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 5:52 PM Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
> On 1/4/21 1:45 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> > it sounds like your concern is not so much with a three-part
> > _numbering scheme_, but with the possiblity that we might put out
> > 2.70.n _after_ 2.71.  What if we say that, at least for the time being
> > (until some hypothetical future where the project has a lot more
> > resources) we won’t do that?
>
> In that case the two numbering schemes are functionally equivalent, and
> it becomes almost entirely a marketing issue.

Yes.

> > I tested that script, and it correctly handles three-part version
> > numbers reported by autoconf.  It will need to be changed if Emacs
> > decides to _require_ a three-part autoconf version
>
> ... and at that point the proposed numbering scheme will be more hassle
> for Emacs developers than if Autoconf had stuck with the current scheme,
> because they'll have to alter the code in autogen.sh instead of merely
> changing AC_PREREQ(2.65) to AC_PREREQ(2.73) in configure.ac.

After thinking about it a bit more, this technical argument against
three-part versions is quite compelling ... but I still find the
marketing argument *for* three-part versions to be quite compelling.
I would like to hear some more people's opinions; cc:ing Eric and
Karl.

zw