Re: next emacs version?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Lennart Borgman writes:
 > On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 3:35 AM, Ken Raeburn <address@hidden> wrote:
 > >
 > > Unless you want to start putting bzr revision numbers into the emacs 
 > > version string (which I think is a bad idea), that's going to be the case.
 > 
 > But perhaps having the bzr version available in another variable in
 > the build Emacs would be a good idea?

There is no such thing as *the* bzr revision number, because (a)
revision numbers are supposed to be ordered, but revision numbers on
parallel branches cannot be ordered, and (b) revision numbers are not
consistent across repositories.

It is a good idea to put in the revision ID in a variable (SHA1s are
barely tolerable in the version string because of their length, but
bzr revision IDs can be much longer), but revision IDs aren't ordered,
either.

This is not useful for Drew, though.