Carsten You haven't misunderstood my arguments at all.
> > - do not use something like 7.02a, because the letter will defeat > version number testing > - from our most recent exchange I felt that you agree that > 7.02 will behave correctly when compared with the > version- functions. So I actually understood that > you agreed with me. I thought you would go with 7.20 :-) and I didn't see any problem with that. > > The reason why I use 7.02 at all is just because I think it > is pretty when one is expecting 2-digit release numbers. > The release file numbers line up nicely in a directory listing. > Things like this. > > Do you have the patience to summarize the arguments for me? It is better to avoid a '0' prefix. If you build a org-7.02.tar and try installing using the package manager, you would know what I mean. > I will go with 7.3 for the next release if this is what is > really needed. It is improper for me to say what version you should use. I am careful that I wouldn't step in to that territory. All I can say is that C-h v version-to-list and C-h v version-regexp-alist are your friends. There is a range of schemes available and surely one such scheme will suit your tastes. As for snapshot releases it is better rely on the YYYYMMDD scheme for packaging. M-x org-version can continue to report git magic numbers in the version string. Jambunathan K. _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
