lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: What is holding up 2.20 release?


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: What is holding up 2.20 release?
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 22:38:34 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:

> ´╗┐On 11/16/19, 2:14 PM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>     Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
>     
>     > On 11/16/19, 1:52 PM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
>     >     
>     >     > Dear Team,
>     >     >
>     >     > It seems to me like we are pretty much in shape such that we 
> should
>     >     > release 2.20.  I'd be fine if we called 2.19.83-1 the 2.20 
> release,
>     >     > even if there are some critical regressions.  2.19.83 is SO much
>     >     > better than 2.18.2.
>     >     >
>     >     > IIUC, the only thing 2.20 is waiting on is for David K. to 
> cherry-pick
>     >     > some patches.  Is that correct?
>     >     
>     >     And putting out a new prerelease to be sure that those are ok, and
>     >     waiting for the translators to catch up with cherry-picked patches
>     >     containing stuff to be translated.
>     >     
>     >     But the current roadblock is David K. cherry-picking some patches.  
>     >
>     > Is the reason for cherry-picking such a big list of patches to avoid
>     > some regressions?
>     
>     THIS IS NOT A LIST FOR CHERRY-PICKING!!!!  It is a unculled list of
>     potential candidates that _may_ need or want to be cherry-picked, in
>     case a particular candidate is
>     
>     either
>     a) fixing a regression
>     b) fixing a problem that will foreseeably cause trouble with near-future
>     or our current build systems
>     c) fixing a problem or providing a feature that will foreseeably cause
>     frequent tension between 2.20 and 2.21 users if not cherry-picked
>     d) a definite improvement that does not show potential for causing new
>     regressions
>     e) a documentation fix/change matching 2.20 behavior
>     
>     and/or/maybe
>     a) cherry-picks reasonably painlessly
>     b) does not cause significant followup tasks to be also scheduled
>     
>     > Or are these patches that were created after we put out the last
>     > pre-release?
>     
>     Minus those I already cherry-picked
>     
>     > Would you like me to try doing the cherry-picking for you?
>     
>     If anybody tries indiscriminately picking that list, I am going to be
>     pissed.  The majority of those patches likely has no place in 2.20.
>
> OK, I will not do any cherry-picking.
>
> Is there anything else that can be done to help?

I already mentioned _vetting_ that list but you removed that part before
replying.

-- 
David Kastrup



reply via email to

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