Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@gmail.com> writes: > I think that it will still be useful. In particular, consider major new > feature development. We may take a longer delay between releases then.
Yes. > The code I quoted explicitly removes the "-dev" part. Would you prefer > to keep it? Yes, let's keep it, otherwise (org-release) reads like a lie. Why is it necessary to emit org-version.el? We could have (defun org-version ...) and (defun org-git-version ...) from within org.el, right? Also, I don't think we need org-release: the info org-version provides is enough to know if you are loading Org from a stable (ELPA) release or from a local git repository. WDYT? > See the attached. Tested and works fine, modulo the -dev part that we should keep. Thanks! -- Bastien
