Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4 Apr 2006, Aaron M. Ucko told this: > > > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> So, we have either forcing people running Sid's Gnus to downgrade > >> from No Gnus 0.3+ to 5.10.8, of ship an unreleased version and > >> complicate versioning for future releases. Not a clean path going > >> forward. I am inclined to continue to ship No Gnus, and hopefully > >> Emacs and Gnus shall release soon, or at least before etch, and > >> then etch would release is Gnus 5.11. > > > > Although it's been a while since I've followed Gnus development > > actively, my understanding is that 5.11 will be the culmination of > > the 5.10.x branch that started out as Oort Gnus, and that No Gnus > > (internally designated 5.11[.]000x) will eventually become > > 5.12.x/5.13. > > > > OTOH, the new ~/News/marks setup makes reupgrading after downgrading > > problematic, so I'd still say that the sanest course of action would > > be to stick with No Gnus until it evolves into 5.12.0, at which > > point it will again be possible to follow stable branches without > > backtracking. > > OK. So should I just give Gnus a version consistent with > internal versions, and call it Gnus 5.11.004 ? This way, No Gnus > shall always sort ahead of the Oort Gnus, even when it is released, > and sort below the official non-develoment release of No Gnus, which > would be 5.12. > > Does that make sense?
That would make more sense that having two names. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
