Re: CEDET version

[Eric M. Ludlam]

On 01/21/2013 09:00 PM, Glenn Morris wrote:
> David Engster wrote:
>
> > Actually, it's more like a 1.2 since 1.1 was already released some time
> > ago, and the now bundled files are newer.
> >
> > It is a bit difficult since we bundle a subset of CEDET with Emacs, so
> > upstream versions cannot be really identical. Since we're now merging
> > more regularly, maybe we don't need upstream releases anymore and should
> > see it more as in incubator.
> >
> > In any case, I think calling this version "1.1.5" or "1.2" should be
> > fine, but I'd like to know what Eric thinks.

I'm ok with either of those version numbers.  If official released 
CEDETs are now whatever shows up in Emacs core, that would be fine with 
me also.  Wrapping up a release, and figuring out how to get it to 
safely overlay in Emacs is a bit challenging.

> We can call it whatever version number you like. I think the only real
> issue is when using ELPA to install a newer version of CEDET than the
> version supplied with Emacs (but maybe this won't be happening?).
>
> There are various things that this affects; see M-x list-packages
> output. semantic, srecode, inversion, pulse, ede, etc. They all have
> different version numbers at present.

These used to all go out separately and were later merged into once 
CEDET package.  Is there a reason to version-merge them?  To be honest, 
updating all those version numbers each time we prep a release is a bit 
of a pain, and they all install together.  The cross-version-checking 
isn't as useful a tool as it once was.

I do have some scripts I use to manage version numbers though.  It could 
be that whenever a merge occurs, we add running this script to the merge 
recipe and that will help.

Eric