Re: auctex 11.88 numeration scheme
Uwe Brauer writes:
I did some testing:
I just modified in the
Makefile of the auctex (still not upgraded to 11.88) directory the relevant string
This test is irrelevant. I'm not surprised that the Makefile handles
this and generates the expected tarfiles. Make is basically a macro
language and doesn't care what you put in variables.
What matters is the behavior of list-packages and pkg-admin.el and
friends.
- the version I want to release is not strictly 11.88, but with
a
little patch, thanks to Mosè which made a variable backward
compatible. According to the Auctex folks, that is also true for
elpa, the current version is not *exactly* 11.88.
Already worrisome. If they don't care about ELPA, then I suppose
they'll let XEmacs slide too.
- if we found a functionality in auctex which would need some
modifications wrapped with a (with (featurep 'xemacs) I am pretty
sure the auctex team would accept it. Now I had a look the
Changelog[1] since 11.84 the changes done, would not affect
functionality provided by auctex so I doubt it would go in their
package.
(1) It's not a question of whether they would accept XEmacs-related
changes. The question is whether they would bump the release
number just because *we* need a new release.
(2) Specifically, does AUCTeX distribute the XEmacs package Makefile?
Many XEmacs-specific changes are changes to that file. We need to
distinguish versions so users know what they're getting. But if
they don't distribute that file, I hardly think they'll be happy
bumping the version so that we can change the file and release a
new version.
However if I change now the scheme to 11.88 and we would make some
(internal) changes I would not like to call the new release 11.89, if
11.88-a is not possible I would even propose not to change the release
number at all.
I don't think that proposal is acceptable. Users who already have
version 11.88 will have no way to know they need to upgrade. To do
the upgrade I suspect they will need to remove and reinstall.
[1] there is something odd, it seems some information got lost when
moving from CVS to mercury, because I remember the problems with
11.84 and the contribution of Mats, and this was around 2008/2009
but it is not reflected in the Changelog, it seems that the
upgrade to 11.84 is from 2014 which is wrong
No, that's correct. In fact the upgrade *did* happen in 2014 because
the 11.84 stuff was off on a branch in CVS and never merged to
mainline that I remember. That situation was continued in Mercurial
(I don't recall whether the branch got replicated in Mercurial or we
had to reimport it.) Then more XEmacs-specific work got done on top
of 11.55 (IIRC), so it was a small mess.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta