From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: Org release 8.2.5g (minor release from maint) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:08:53 +0100 Message-ID: <87y504dld6.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <87k3dtsat8.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87wqhtywkx.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87fvocbigv.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87ios0vdnr.fsf@gmail.com> <8761ny2sj6.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87ob1qf5br.fsf@gmail.com> <87siqxrfkr.fsf@gmail.com> <87eh2ho1bk.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87d2i1e3fu.fsf@gmail.com> <87wqg7ug6a.fsf@gmail.com> <8738iubhb4.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87eh2exact.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87vbvijghj.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87r466ysea.fsf@berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50723) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WQuVk-0002jL-NI for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 04:09:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WQuVf-0005kM-NS for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 04:09:04 -0400 Received: from rs249.mailgun.us ([209.61.151.249]:54664) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WQuVf-0005kG-IJ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 04:08:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87r466ysea.fsf@berkeley.edu> (Richard Lawrence's message of "Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:28:45 -0700") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Richard Lawrence Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Richard, thanks for your detailed account on The Debian Way. Richard Lawrence writes: > If introducing a dependency on cl-lib right now > will be the best thing for Org, I have no real objections; if it can be > put off for a while without significant cost, that would be great, but > it isn't necessary. I suggest we make this happen for Org 9.0. The big version number will be scary enough to make people carefully check backward compatibility issues. We could even stick to this policy: no backward compatibility issue between minor (i.e. X.X) versions. I think it's close to what we've been doing so far. In the meantime, I suggest we add a comment on top of compatibility functions that we might remove in Org 9.0. Eric, could you do that based on the list you provided? Thanks to both, -- Bastien