Re: Releasing 2.20

[Trevor Daniels]

David Kastrup wrote Wednesday, June 07, 2017 9:34 PM

> tomorrow I am leaving for physical therapy.

Hope it all goes well for you.

> So I should be able to do some reasonably straightforward work.

Good, but that should not be your priority ATM.
 
> So how is it going to end up?  Barring objections, I'll probably branch
> off a stable release branch early next week.  I'll have to see what to
> cherry-pick into this branch as fixes proceed, and possibly what to
> revert when it is not clear that functionality provided by recent
> patches/changes can be considered stable in use and interface.

Again, good, but ...
 
> I don't think that we should need much more than the 3-week maturing
> period corresponding to the expected physical therapy duration.

Agreed, there seem to be very few reasons to delay.  Presumably it will
be a .0 release anyway, meaning "use cautiously and look out for bugs."
 
> The alternative of releasing 2.18.3 since 2.18.2 does not even compile
> using gcc-7 anymore is something I want to avoid.

Definitely.  There are so many improvements since 2.18 that a major
release is the sensible choice.

> So I'd rather pitch for a timely release of 2.20.  There have been a few
> critical bugs flagged, however.  I'll take a look at them eventually but
> if someone else has a good idea...

We might need to revisit these to see if they really are critical.

Trevor


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com