-
|
Emacs 30.1 ships with org-mode 9.7.11. Are there features you need in 9.7.19? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 1 comment 2 replies
-
|
There almost certainly are no significant differences between these two versions. The reason I bump dependencies to their latest releases (usually only when I create a new release due to other changes having accumulated) is that I do not want to promise that some older release is supported, when I have in fact done absolutely nothing to verify that this is actually true. The reason that I do not verify it is that I maintain many packages, including some very popular and labor insensitive ones, and simply do not have the time to do it. Here it would be reasonable to support the version in the latest Emacs release; the odds that *.11 won't do and *.19 is required, are negligible. However, 30.1 was just released. The last I do realize that this can occasionally inconvenient for users. Despite that, this only comes up very infrequently, for which I am thankful. I could take on the extra work on do the right thing™, but that would come with an opportunity cost, and I think my time is better invested elsewhere. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Sorry, I did not mean to be antagonistic. I was thinking it could be useful to users who do not want to update the org that ships with emacs. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I didn't think you were, but I can see how what I wrote could be seen that way, and how that could lead to the conclusion, that I was responding in kind from my assumed position. I just wanted to firmly say no, along the lines of "I understand where you are coming from, and might even agree in principal, but I just cannot afford to do it that way". Probably with a sprinkle of "I hope this conversation is over now" subtext, which you did pick up on, but interpreted as more antagonistic than I had intended. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
I didn't think you were, but I can see how what I wrote could be seen that way, and how that could lead to the conclusion, that I was responding in kind from my assumed position.
I just wanted to firmly say no, along the lines of "I understand where you are coming from, and might even agree in principal, but I just cannot afford to do it that way". Probably with a sprinkle of "I hope this conversation is over now" subtext, which you did pick up on, but interpreted as more antagonistic than I had intended.