On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 5:52 PM Paul Eggert <eggert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 1/4/21 1:45 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: > > > it sounds like your concern is not so much with a three-part > > _numbering scheme_, but with the possiblity that we might put out > > 2.70.n _after_ 2.71. What if we say that, at least for the time being > > (until some hypothetical future where the project has a lot more > > resources) we won’t do that? > > In that case the two numbering schemes are functionally equivalent, and > it becomes almost entirely a marketing issue. Yes. > > I tested that script, and it correctly handles three-part version > > numbers reported by autoconf. It will need to be changed if Emacs > > decides to _require_ a three-part autoconf version > > ... and at that point the proposed numbering scheme will be more hassle > for Emacs developers than if Autoconf had stuck with the current scheme, > because they'll have to alter the code in autogen.sh instead of merely > changing AC_PREREQ(2.65) to AC_PREREQ(2.73) in configure.ac. After thinking about it a bit more, this technical argument against three-part versions is quite compelling ... but I still find the marketing argument *for* three-part versions to be quite compelling. I would like to hear some more people's opinions; cc:ing Eric and Karl. zw
