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
On Oct 29, 2010, at 3:06 PM, Jambunathan K wrote:
Carsten
Hi Jambunathan,
On Oct 28, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Jambunathan K wrote:
I have every reason to believe that upcoming version of Org would be
tagged as 7.02. Earlier I had argued that version strings be
version-to-list compatible. I woul
Hi Jambunathan,
Jambunathan K writes:
> Now that release-7.02 is out, I am a bit disappointed that a ELPA-tar
> named org-7.02.tar would be unusable.
Let's fix this by having a conversation with the ELPA maintainers.
Can you start a discussion off-list with me, Carsten, ELPA maintainers
and Ch
Carsten
> Hi Jambunathan,
>
> On Oct 28, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Jambunathan K wrote:
>
>>
>> I have every reason to believe that upcoming version of Org would be
>> tagged as 7.02. Earlier I had argued that version strings be
>> version-to-list compatible. I would like to reiterate it.
>>
>> My real c
Carsten
>
> (version-to-list "7.02") -> (7 2)
> (version-to-list "7.20") -> (7 20)
>
> so it seems to me that if we keep two-digit numbers, there will be no
> problem at all.
>
> #+begin_src emacs-lisp
> (version-list-= (version-to-list "7.02") (version-to-list "7.20"))
> #+end_src
Yes, I agr
Hi Jambunathan,
On Oct 28, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Jambunathan K wrote:
I have every reason to believe that upcoming version of Org would be
tagged as 7.02. Earlier I had argued that version strings be
version-to-list compatible. I would like to reiterate it.
My real concern is that 7.02 would be d
Bastien
> Can you suggest a new default for `version-regexp-alist' so that
> 7.01 is considered older than 7.10?
I assume there is a typo here. Just for the sake of clarification:
(version-list-= (version-to-list "7.01") (version-to-list "7.1")) is t
(version-list-< (version-to-list "7.01") (ve
Hello Bastien
Bastien writes:
> Jambunathan K writes:
>
>> I have every reason to believe that upcoming version of Org would be
>> tagged as 7.02. Earlier I had argued that version strings be
>> version-to-list compatible. I would like to reiterate it.
>>
>> My real concern is that 7.02 would
Jambunathan K writes:
> I have every reason to believe that upcoming version of Org would be
> tagged as 7.02. Earlier I had argued that version strings be
> version-to-list compatible. I would like to reiterate it.
>
> My real concern is that 7.02 would be deemed as equivalent to 7.2
> internall
I have every reason to believe that upcoming version of Org would be
tagged as 7.02. Earlier I had argued that version strings be
version-to-list compatible. I would like to reiterate it.
My real concern is that 7.02 would be deemed as equivalent to 7.2
internally by the versioning subsystem and
10 matches
Mail list logo
