bug#62762: 'make' often errors with "Org version mismatch" after pulling a new version of the code

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net>
> Cc: manikulin@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, bzg@gnu.org,
>  dmitry@gutov.dev, 62762@debbugs.gnu.org, acm@muc.de, Kyle Meyer
>  <kyle@kyleam.com>, Bastien <bzg@gnu.org>
> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 12:30:01 +0000
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> This is aiming for Org's bugfix branch (as a critical fix).
> >> AFAIK, Org bugfix releases were going into release branch.
> >> 
> >> At the same time, this change is not aiming at Org distributed within
> >> Emacs tree. The whole issue is with ELPA version of Org.
> >
> > The above two paragraphs contradict each other, AFAIU.  If a change is
> > installed on the release branch of the Emacs Git repository, it will
> > be included in the release tarball, and thus in the Emacs source tree.
> >
> > OTOH, if this is not about the Emacs Git repository, then why did you
> > say you were asking Emacs developers these questions?
> >
> > I guess I'm missing something here.
> 
> Normally, every Org release is synchronized with Emacs upstream (master).
> During the Emacs release, we have done the same for Emacs emacs-29
> branch (Org 9.6.6 is included in emacs-29; see
> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/lisp/org/org.el?h=emacs-29#n12).
> 
> However, during the Emacs release process, if significant changes have
> to be done on Org side, we may consider not syncing the Emacs release
> branch and Org bugfix. See
> https://orgmode.org/worg/org-maintenance.html#org-version-emacs
> 
> But definition of "significant" is subjective. So, I wanted to clarify
> with you (Emacs dev).

I'm not sure I understood the above, but just to be clear: the
emacs-29 release branch was not supposed to have any of the changes
meant to prevent aborting the build due to Org version mismatch.  I
now see that the org--inhibit-version-check change did somehow get
installed on emacs-29, and I think it's unfortunate and was never
discussed.  In https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=62762#53
and again in https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=62762#65 I
clearly said that the change was installed only on master.  I think
the fact that this got backported to emacs-29 was unintentional.