Re: Future of XEmacs
Mike Kupfer writes:
Uwe Brauer wrote:
> Another point is the numbering system. I think it would be
> best to adapt a debian like numbering scheme.
> We use the version numbers the authors provide and indicate
> our chances by letter suffixes.
I'd like to see the author (upstream) version information made more
visible, too, though it's fairly low on my personal priority list.
Being able to support a wide range of upstream version formats is
non-trivial.
Once we provide and make discoverable a way to extract that
information, I don't see why my suggestion in my reply to Uwe about
using a list of version information (author-version xemacs-revno
xemacs-revid) wouldn't do the trick. Perhaps there should be one more
field which would be the email address of the release authority -- for
the "official" packages, something like packages(a)xemacs.org (NOT
viteno(a)xemacs.org! Norbert might want to release his own unofficial
packages, and it shouldn't change if Norbert retires or goes on
leave). And it probably should be a plist.
It's only when you try to serialize all that information in one string
that is easy for a POSIX shell to work with that life gets hard. We
don't have that problem. In the official package sources, we can work
with revids. In XEmacs, we can use Lisp data structures.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta