Re: ``xemacs-21.2-b23''

Ben Wing <ben(a)666.com&gt; wrote: > As far as I know, it was Steve who changed the numbering. I've never > liked it, and I suggest we switch back to the old system. Sure. Lemme jsut spam again what I've often said about this: we have a tendency to think in terms of what's more logical or convenient for /us/, and this is bad. We're not the majority of people using XEmacs, the whole bunch of beta testers aren't the majority either. The majority of people use stable releases, and we should try to provide /them/ with a coherent naming convention. So what kind of XEmacs version do these people expect ? - major versions, like 21 with major changes compared to the previous major branch, - minor versions, like 2, with minor changes compared to the previous minor releases within the same major branch, - patch level releases with bug fixes only on the previous major.minor release. I'm sorry but that's all there's to it. Everything else is /our/ problem, not theirs. From their point of view, which is mine on several applications I use, naming conventions that suddenly jump odd or even numbers to indicate an obscure release status which anyway varies from project to project is a total nonsense. Version numbers increase by one and that's all. So the only sensible numbering scheme is - major.minor (minor >= 0) for normal releases, - major.minor.patchlevel (patchlevel > = 1) for bug fixes releases. Then, if we need beta numbers, cvs commits numbers or anything else, let's just make them separate values, and print them like we want, 21.2-b12+6, 21.2 beta 12 cvs 6 or whatever. But let's not fuck up the version numbers with our problems. All of this IMHO obviously, and there's gonna be chuckles if we change the numbering scheme once again anyway... -- / / _ _ Didier Verna http://www.inf.enst.fr/~verna/ - / / - / / /_/ / EPITA / LRDE mailto:didier＠epita.fr /_/ / /_/ / /__ / 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel. +33 (1) 44 08 01 77 94276 Kremlin-Bicêtre cedex Fax. +33 (1) 44 08 01 99