Re: Future of XEmacs
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
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.
That does look like a plausible approach. Having our own monotonically
increasing counter (xemacs-revno) would let us sidestep the parsing
issues that come with the Debian scheme.
I'd want to consider some of the edge cases, though, like what happens
if we end up moving to another source code control system for some
reason. Not that I want to encourage that, or even that I think such a
move is likely; I just want to make sure we don't paint ourselves into a
corner. I suppose that if the integer revision number is not
transferable, we could always introduce some sort of epoch number.
I still have a mild desire for putting the author version in the package
tarball name, but that's mostly because I haven't figured out how to
make PUI work from behind my employer's firewall. Then again, the right
answer there is probably to change PUI or EFS, not the tarball file
name.
mike
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta