Re: 2.16 release candidate 3 imminent

[Carl Sorensen]

On 1/21/12 9:45 AM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:

>On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 05:27:00PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I would very much prefer the work on Issue 2240 (aka 2070) to make it
>> into 2.16.  It is a significant API change that should not occur during
>> a stable release series, and it paves the way for making the music
>> function work continue smoothly enough that backporting further
>> enhancements into a stable 2.16 series would be feasible.
>
>IMO, significant API changes should not happen right before a
>release.  Version numbers are cheap; why not have 2.18 in March
>2012?  Backporting is a huge hassle.
>

Earlier, we expressed a need to have stable mean *stable*, i.e. no syntax
changes necessary for some period of time.  We wanted stable versions to
have a significant lifetime so things like LilyPondTool and Frescobaldi
didn't need to always keep changing.

If we still want to have that policy, I believe that subversion numbers
are cheap, but stable version numbers are expensive.

I think we'd be best to try to get this into 2.16.

Thanks,

Carl