On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 07:41:30PM -0400, Mark Harig wrote: >Ken Brown wrote: >>On 5/14/2009 5:57 PM, Mark Harig wrote: >>>In case you were unaware, Emacs version 23.0.93.1 (pre-release test) >>>has been available for a few weeks. It might be worth considering >>>providing both 23.0.92 and 23.0.93 so that you can work out how to >>>maintain two versions: "stable" and "unstable" (not that .92 is more >>>stable than .93). >> >>Yes, I knew about 23.0.93. I built it for myself and have been using >>it, just to make sure there were no regressions. If 23.0.92 proves >>stable enough to be promoted to current, then I'll think about doing >>something like what you suggested. But let's wait and see what happens >>when it gets released and people start using it. The transition from >>21.2 to 23.0 might take some time for people to adapt to. Emacs 21.2 >>was released 7 years ago, and there's been quite a bit of development >>since then. > >People who are willing to use the not-yet-released Cygwin 1.7 and the >not-yet-released Emacs 23 ought to be expecting some instability.
Please don't argue with a package maintainer about what they should be releasing especially when you are talking about more work for them. >Alternatively, if Emacs 22.3 does not have compilation problems with >Cygwin 1.7, then it could be provided as the "Curr" version, and one or >more versions of Emacs 23 could be provided as "Exp." Alternatively, if this is really important to you then you could build the package yourself. cgf