Re: Issue 2648 in lilypond: Repeat Dots and Staff Size in 2.15.41

[David Kastrup]

"Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, July 10, 2012 1:19 PM
>
>
>> "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> We have the technology to identify the commits that introduce bugs
>>> fairly easily.  Perhaps once the first release candidate is made we
>>> simply say any commit that introduced a critical regression bug after
>>> that is simply reverted, and the originator invited to resubmit after
>>> the next stable is released.
>> 
>> After the stable release is before the stable release.  We can't freeze
>> development while we are unable to get a sane release process going.
>> That would be, like, permanent.
>
> That's not what I said.  I said "once the first release candidate is
> made".  After that point we deal with new regressions by reverting,
> and don't start a new countdown, rather than starting a new countdown
> only after the bug is fixed, as now.  That would guarantee we get a
> stable release within the period we allow for testing the release
> candidate.

Uh, no.  By far most regressions we had were old regressions.

>> One could try such a revert strategy on a stable release _branch_, but
>> it is not unlikely to lead to cascades of reverts, since quite a few
>> fixes are also intended to cure regressions by themselves.  And reverts
>> of increasingly older commits have increasingly stranger interactions
>> with developments that happened in between (and that does not just mean
>> merge conflicts).
>
> If such a complication did arise then that would justify requiring a
> proper fix, in which case a new countdown would begin only after the
> fix was in.
>
> I guess we really need an analysis of recent critical bugs to come
> to a rational conclusion.

<URL:http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-26#the_road_to_2_16>,
scroll down to "Critical issues", unfold the table, read the article.

Then tell me again that I am coming to irrational conclusions.

It is not like we are talking about surprise developments here.

-- 
David Kastrup