Re: ELPA update

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Ted Zlatanov writes:

 > I don't see what's wrong with my proposal to have a `elpa-dev' branch
 > for unstable and `elpa-stable' for stable packages; merging `elpa' into
 > `elpa-dev' will be a much clearer sign to publish a new version than
 > incrementing the version number (which, as we know, is often
 > unparseable).

Nothing.  I was responding to P.J.'s suggestion, which wasn't bad
either.