Re: 2.16 release candidate 3 out

[Graham Percival]

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:46:28AM +0100, Francisco Vila wrote:
> 2012/2/17 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> > - nobody touches the release/unstable branch, than translators,
> >  who may merge with that if they want to and don't break
> >  anything.

oops, that should have read "other than translators".

> I am going to merge lilypond/translation into release/unstable, but I
> don't want to lose those translations for master and 2.17. I could
> either A) also merge lilypond/translation into staging as usual, or B)
> wait for anyone else to merge release/unstable into staging (I see
> that it has been done already once).
> 
> Are those options correct? Which is best?

Since there are Critical issues, the current release/unstable is
not a candidate for release.  In this case, just merge into
staging as normal.

When I screw up git branches with releases -- which is not a rare
event -- I generally end up deleting the current release/unstable
and just make another one.  I could try to remember to merge
release/unstable into staging before deleting it, but no promises.
Granted, as long as you have lilypond/translation, we won't lose
any work.

This doesn't really answer the question of what to do when there's
an actual viable release candidate... although at the moment I
can't think of any reason *not* to merge into staging provided
that there's no conflicts.  Such conflicts would only arise if
there's a serious divergence between release/unstable and master,
but I refuse to maintain a long-term distinct release branch for
precisely that reason.

- Graham