Re: No calc in pretest?

[Miles Bader]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> Perhaps we can use planned gaps in minor version numbers.  For
> instance, maybe the next non-bug-fix release should be Emacs 21.10.
> This is not fundamentally different from inserting an additional
> number after the major version, as if the current version were 21.1.2
> and the next non-bug-fix would be 21.2.1.

I think leaving a gap is confusing; using minor-minor numbers mirrors
what's actually happening quite well, and since it's used by most
projects out there, it's very familiar and informative to users.

Since the code changes to use minor-minor numbers appear to be (heh)
minor, what's the problem with using them?

-Miles
-- 
`...the Soviet Union was sliding in to an economic collapse so comprehensive
 that in the end its factories produced not goods but bads: finished products
 less valuable than the raw materials they were made from.'  [The Economist]