Re: switching to Python 3.x

[Jonas Hahnfeld]

Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2020, 17:30 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Jonas Hahnfeld <
> address@hidden
> > writes:
> 
> > Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2020, 16:25 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> > > > OK. So what is your proposal for how to proceed with Jonas' patch?
> > > 
> > > Different possibilities.  Probably easiest is to have different GUB
> > > setups for LilyPond-2.20 and LilyPond-2.22.  Then we can stick with
> > > Python2 (and PowerPC installers, yuch) for as long as 2.20 is a thing
> > > but move on otherwise.
> > 
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2020-01/msg00041.html
> > 
> > -> I'd propose to just create a branch for GUB from the current
> > commit.
> 
> It would be my guess that a different target could be more convenient,
> but my GUB knowledge is close to nil.

I mean to propose that we just keep a copy (= branch) of GUB's current
specs and use that for future 2.20.x

> 
> > Jonas
> > 
> > > 2.20 should be out soonish, and we definitely
> > > don't want to have that patch gather bitrot.
> > 
> > P.S.: Can't decide on a comment for this one
> 
> 2.19.85 is in Phil's queue (though it's a bit unclear when it will
> surface) and a 2.20 window of 2 weeks was suggested by me in Salzburg
> for final fixes after it's out.

Where did 2.19.84 go?
Looking at stable/2.20, you didn't pick the other commits that I
proposed back in November? That's a bit unfortunate because it means
there are quite some known issues with the new release...

Jonas

> And I don't want significant delay for 2.21.0 afterwards.  Does that
> help you deciding on a comment?

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part