Re: No calc in pretest?

[Kim F. Storm]

Jon Cast <address@hidden> writes:

> address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) wrote:
> > Jon Cast <address@hidden> writes:
> <snip>
> > > 21.5.0.yyyymmdd sorts higher than 21.5.0, so it should be a later
> > > release.
> 
> > Then call the initial release 21.5.1.
> 
> You mean like this?
> 
> 21.5.0.50.yyyymmdd -- CVS leading up to 21.5.1
> 21.5.0.9x.         -- Pre-test for 21.5.1
> 21.5.1             -- Release from CVS head
> 21.5.x             -- Bug-fix release (x > 1)
> 
> I *think* that should satisfy both of us.  I'm happy with it; how
> about you?

Hm.

I don't see any reason to separate CVS snapshot versions from pretest
versions.  emacsbug.el should (probably) send bug reports for either
type of build to the emacs-pretest-bug address.

So I suggest the following:

21.5.0.0          -- Direct build from CVS head.
21.5.0.yyyymmdd   -- Snapshot or pretest from CVS head.
21.5.1            -- Initial release from CVS head.
21.5.x            -- Bug-fix release (x > 1)


The build number is appended to these numbers, so we end up with
the users seeing numbers like this where y is typically 1.

21.5.0.0.y
21.5.0.20020703.y
21.5.1.y
21.5.x.y

For the release build numbers, this looks ok.

For the CVS builds, this is also ok, as it clearly differentiates
these builds from builds based on official releases.

> 
> The reason for having separate version numbers for CVS
> (x.y.0.50.yyyymmdd and x.y.0.9z) is that I think emacsbug.el needs to
> be able to differentiate them, and that seems easiest to implement

No, emacsbug counts the number of `.'s in the version string,
and if there is more than 2 (currently), it supposes it is
a pretest.

With my scheme, the test would simply be 
        (let ((pretest-p (= emacs-minor-minor-version 0)))
        ...)


of course, I'm assuming we have a variable containing the minor-minor
number (can someone come up with a better term?)

-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk