Re: Bootstrap deleted DOC-nnn file

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:
 >       And yes, I
 >     have had people tell me "I'm sorry, I had an old executable
 >     running for some reason", resolving a bug report.
 > 
 > How did they run the old executables?  I doubt that they typed
 > emacs-MM.NN.OO.P to run one.

Doubt what you like, but in the cases I refer to indeed the path used
to invoke the executable was versioned, though not always explicitly
typed by the user (aliases, completion, etc).  It's quite unusual that
it happens without the user recognizing it, but memories are fallible,
and when it does happen, it obscures the actual problem (or lack of it
in the case of spurious reports of regressions), delaying solution or
creating unnecessary work for maintainers.

 > But I don't want to run an old executable by mistake.

I quite understand that.  I have been at pains to avoid denying your
experience or workflow; it is what it is and I do not deny that for
you the benefits of keeping old executables around for various reasons
exceeds the cost.  My whole point is simply that your experience is
hardly universal.  Apparently most people don't care at all, while a
few (including more than one active maintainer of Emacsen) experience
the costs to be noticeably greater than the benefits.