Re: Texinfo 5.x and the packages

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Mats Lidell <matsl(a)xemacs.org&gt; wrote: No, I think the patch is okay as it is. It does alter the appearance of the text in a couple of places, but not critically so, I think. However, I would like to combine this sweeping change with a couple of other sweeping changes I have planned for some time, so as to minimize the strain on poor Norbert. Here is what I would like to do: - Apply this patch, which touches a number of packages - Apply another patch that re-expands CVS keywords to the values they had in the final state of our CVS repository. This doesn't matter for most of the touched files, but it does matter for a few, such as the following: o mule-packages/mule-ucs/doc/mule-ucs.texi o mule-packages/skk/skk.el o xemacs-packages/bbdb/lisp/bbdb.el o xemacs-packages/edit-utils/recent-files.el Even for those where the CVS keyword appears only in a comment, I think it is still valuable to know the origins of the file in more detail. - Apply a patch that renames all .cvsignore files to .hgignore. Since .hgignore files default to regular expression syntax and the existing .cvsignore files use glob syntax, it will also be necessary to either add a leading "syntax: glob" line to each file, or manually convert each glob pattern to an equivalent regular expression. My question is how to handle version number bumps in the Makefile. Each of these will be a separate commit, so they can be backed out individually if necessary, but does each one need to bump version numbers, or is a single bump at the end of the series good enough? Opinions? -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta