|Subject:||Re: Release schedule for 2.20|
|Date:||Wed, 9 May 2018 16:09:17 +0200|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0|
But an increasing number of questions asked in forums or on the lists can be answered by “compile current master or wait for 2.21.0”. And a huge number of answers requires at least 2.19.xx but people understandably don’t want to install an “unstable” version.
IIUC, the situation used to be: i) Rare-to-very-rare stable releases for "normal" users, ii) frequent instable releases for those who wanted to use the latest features. This seems to have changed due to the preparations for the next stable release in that the instable releases stopped appearing as well for the time being. Since at the same time, development of new features goes on, people who want the latest features now have to compile for themselves.
(I, for example, just recently switched to self-compiled Lilypond because of Malte's amazing work on the \haydnTurn which was prompted by my question. To my surprise, compiling turned out to be quite easy, but of course there /were /some slight dependency issues, /and /I'm running on Linux which simplifies matters.)
Question: How difficult/costly/... would it be to prepare a "daily build from current master" for download? While this certainly would be overkill during times when there's a new unstable release every few weeks or so, it would I think, by way of contrast, highlight the status of the unstable releases more clearly: "The stable releases are rock-solid; the unstable releases usually work flawlessly but are subject to change; the daily build is something for the reckless and impatient." (Whereas now, the latter is the way people tend to think about the /unstable /releases which underestimates their quality.)
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|