Re: GUB progress?

[John Mandereau]

Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> we had some good progress with GUB.  However, in the last few weeks
> the development stalled, which is not good.  I thus propose the
> following.
> 
> * The pull requests as described in
> 
>     https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2019-01/msg0022
> 1.html
> 
>   should finally be applied.  I think they are uncontroversial – or
> is
>   there any other reason that prevents application?

I got no reply from my last comment on #59, so I went for closing it. I
 merged all others from #53 to #62. I'm not as certain for #61 and #62
as for others, but I observed no regression with them and nobody else
commented. There are also old open pull requests left, do you have some
clue on them?


>   Alternatively, please give me (and Knut) write access to the GUB
>   repository so that we can do it by ourselves.

IIUC only Graham can do this. If relying on Phil, me and others with
write access to gperciva/gub appears to be an issue, you or Knut or me
could fork this repository.


> * A new development release should be done `officially' ASAP.  Even
> if
>   it doesn't work OK on all platforms yet, it would serve the
> majority
>   of users and developers.

Are you available to make a build for release? This would also help
validating PRs #61 and #62, if you haven't tested them already.

I'm fine with attempting a development release, except that
- I need to send a developer with access to lilypond.org the binaries
and docs, or be granted access;
- it'll delay a little more my work on upgrading Python in GUB to 2.7.

Your request raises another issue: would we release 2.21.0, or 2.19.83,
or both (building 2.19.83 from stable/2.20 branch being a Release
Candidate for 2.20)?

Best,
John