[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:
> > 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

reply via email to

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