Re: auctex 11.88 numeration scheme
Uwe Brauer writes:
How could I test [behavior of package tools]?
Create a directory with packages in it and point
package-get-download-sites at it.
> Already worrisome. If they don't care about ELPA, then I
suppose
> they'll let XEmacs slide too.
I am no sure what you mean by «slide».
Don't worry about it. On second thought it doesn't matter AUCTeX
thinks about it.
I agree: in an ideal world (say some 10 years ago) you are right.
But
let me try at least once to convince you.[1]
Doing it right will be a lot of work.
In my judgement only the texinfo fix might be relevant to the
average
user, while the fixes might not. So frankly I don't think the typical
user (out of a very small set of users) would loose anything when not
upgrading.
That's not the point; the point is that if you switch to AUCTeX
versioning, and then do make an important change between AUCTeX
releases, it *will* be invisible to existing users. They'll have to
find out about it for themselves, then download and install by hand.
To conclude:
- please consider that our internal changes would not result
in a release with a new release number.
It's your package, you can do what you want as long Norbert is OK with
it. I think that's a very bad idea, and it's not reliable --
eventually there will be an important reason to do a release out of
sync with upstream.
- how can we test the notation 11.88-a would work?
Somebody did already, and it doesn't.
- if none of the above is acceptable or works, than I would
stick to the old system,
This is by far the best option at the moment.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta