Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities (radical update)

[Graham Percival]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 06:44:51PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> 
> Graham, you wrote Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:48 PM
> 
> >Completely agreed!  I've taken a stab at this with the "stamp of
> >approval" concept of a release -- please take a look at the
> >updated GOP-PROP 8...(probable decision) and let me know what you
> >think.
> 
> Well, OK, it's a better point, if a little contrived :)  I can live
> with it, though.
> Let's move on.

Well, it's not /entirely/ contrived.  I mean, Janek wants us to
use fontforge 20110222 or higher; I want to say "no way until
lilydev has that version of fontforged installed".  And if we ever
did push such a change without lilydev being updated, I certainly
wouldn't want to make a new stable release before fixing that!

We haven't had many build-dependency updates in the past few
years, but before that we used to require really cutting-edge
libraries.  I'm not opposed to requiring new libraries, and I
don't care if it's something that no linux distro includes -- as
long as we have a customized, downloadable, lilydev iso image
available.
(I could argue that anything less would be a "regression", i.e. "I
used to be able to contribute to development, but because of
changes to git master I can no longer do so".  However, I'd rather
make this particular case of "regression" explicit.)

Cheers,
- Graham