[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: |
Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:03:02 -0500 |
Stefan Monnier <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > I don't have any strong feelings, but IMHO changing the major
> > > > version number after only 3 releases is generally undesirable.
> > > I don't see any good reason why this should be so.
> > I don't see any good reason why it shouldn't be so, and I don't
> > see any bad reason either. Even if you don't think tradition,
> > conformance to the cultural expectations of Free Software users,
> > etc. are good reasons, you have to admit they're bad reasons :)
> What's the fundamental difference betweeen 3 or 4 revisions and 7
> (as in the Emacs-20 line) ? Adding cua, tramp, ido, the elisp
> manual, calc, leim and more isn't enough to justify bumping the
> major revision counter ? Why not ?
> > > What about between v17 and v18 ?
> > I don't think either of those existed.
> I actually don't know but I'd be surprised if you're right. They
> might have never been released, but I expected they existed.
OK, let me expand on my comment: the major version number before 19
was (IIRC) 1: the version before v19 was 1.18.
> > > What about between v3 and v4 ?
> > I know those didn't exist.
> I again think you're wrong.
There was no GNU Emacs 3 or GNU Emacs 4. There were 1.3 and 1.4, but
that was a minor change.
<snip>
> Yes, it has some importance. It's important for people to know
> whether it's just a bugfix release or not. But as for what defines
> a major change, as I said, this is very subjective. In the past,
> Emacs revision numbers have been completely useless as "bugfix"
> indicators and have only been mildly useful as featureset
> predictors. And I haven't heard many complaints about it, and the
> only complaints I heard were about distinguishing bugfix-releases,
> which my 2-part scheme handles just fine.
If we start making major releases on an annual basis, expect to start
hearing complaints :)
<snip>
> The only definition of "major" that I could find compelling
No comment on this
> and that seems to corresponds to past practices
So because past practice has been less than stellar at identifying
what should be a major release, we should drop the distinction?
> is "a major rework of the C code". That does not necessarily have
> anything to do with what users perceive in term of features. So if
> you consider major release numbers as indicators of "probably buggy
> because it has a lot of new code", I could agree. But claiming that
> we should distinguish between the jump from 19.28->19.29 and
> 19.34->20.1 in terms of features is just not right, because to most
> people around me, the first jump was more important than the second.
What /was/ this crucial change from 19.28->19.29? I'm curious now
(and given that there /was/ a 19.28, I'm wondering if there shouldn't
have been more major releases in there).
> > I don't think we have /any/ gain in convenience labeling the
> > current trunk 22.0 over 21.4. And users expect major releases to
> > be, well, major. What reason does Emacs have to dis-regard that?
> Please read my other messages. If 21.4 turns out to be
> yet-another-bugfix, we'll have to go through the code once again and
> fix various references to it that assumed that it was going to be a
> major release. I.e. the point is to choose the revision number long
> in advance and independent from the number of other releases that
> will occur in-between.
That's a one-time cost. As I've pointed out, at some point my scheme
would take over and (nearly) /eliminate/ version number changes. The
only change that would be possible is if we change a version from a
minor flip to a major flip, but that change would almost certainly
involve changing feature sets, too. And then, :version tags will have
to roll anyway :)
> Stefan
Jon Cast
- Re: No calc in pretest?, (continued)
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Kim F. Storm, 2002/07/02
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Simon Josefsson, 2002/07/05
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Eli Zaretskii, 2002/07/05
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Jon Cast, 2002/07/02
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Jon Cast, 2002/07/02
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Stefan Monnier, 2002/07/02
- Re: No calc in pretest?,
Jon Cast <=
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Ken Raeburn, 2002/07/03
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Jon Cast, 2002/07/03
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Miles Bader, 2002/07/03
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Jon Cast, 2002/07/03
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Kai Großjohann, 2002/07/03
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Jon Cast, 2002/07/03
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Robert J. Chassell, 2002/07/02
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Jon Cast, 2002/07/02
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Richard Stallman, 2002/07/03
- Re: No calc in pretest?, Jon Cast, 2002/07/02