[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [testlilyissues:issues] Moderation action required

From: Phil Holmes
Subject: Re: [testlilyissues:issues] Moderation action required
Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 16:49:58 +0100

----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden>
To: "Knut Petersen" <address@hidden>
Cc: "dondelelcaro" <address@hidden>; "lilypond-devel" <address@hidden>
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: [testlilyissues:issues] Moderation action required

Knut Petersen <address@hidden> writes:

Am 12.05.2018 um 09:16 schrieb James Lowe:
Dev team,

Don tacked a patch on the end of an already-fixed issue.

James, they try to fix lilypond 2.18, not 2.20 or master.

2.18 is still insecure.

At this point of time we probably really need to decide to release 2.20,
come hell and high water, including its current faults.

Or pitch out 2.18.3.  At the very least it might make sense to add
purely compilation fixes (for keeping up with more current versions of
compilers etc) to the current stable branch in future even if one does
no proper release.  Possibly even security fixes.  That way there is
some semi-official way of dealing with bit rot.  Also makes it easier to
do regression testing 5 years later.

David Kastrup

I don't think we should update a release last issued 5 years ago - so no 2.18.3.

It also seems that a security problem with no reported problems actually happening in 5 years can be so serious to warrant rushing out a new release?

Phil Holmes

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]