Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs

[Carl D. Sorensen]

On 6/9/09 7:56 AM, "Jan Nieuwenhuizen" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Op dinsdag 09-06-2009 om 07:16 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Carl D.
> Sorensen:
> 
>> There was an announced policy of rapid releases that discouraged spending
>> time on backporting, since we were going to move forward more rapidly on
>> releasing new stable branches.
>> 
>> <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel/19122/match=now>
>> 
>> <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel/19064/match=release>
>> 
>> <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel/19130/match=release>
> 
> Wow, should have read those.  I guess you can pretty much do what you
> want, however, a few things really strike me as odd or unwise

I think we want to do what's wise.  Let's figure out the best way to move
forward.

> 
>    DON'T TOUCH STABLE/2.12.
> 
> why create a "stable/2.12" branch and then not use it and do subsequent
> 2.12.x releases from master?  Why not create stable/2.12 when master
> branches off for 2.13 development?
> 
>    - I will release a final 2.12 release, and begin 2.13.0.
> 
> there is really no such thing as a final release.  In this 2.12.2,
> we have seen ja doc glitches, and gcc-4.4 updates.  There's always
> the possibility that a user finds a real silly problem that you want
> to make a new stable release for.
> 
> Esp. this one
> 
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel/19064/match=release
> 
> makes me frown.  Has 2.13 development been opened already?  Is it
> wise to ask people to sit on their patches for *months*?  I know
> that for me such a thing would be one of the biggest discouragements
> to do development.  Also, I had the impression that the quick turnover
> time was one of the really attractive things of lily development.

2.13 has been opened, and some syntax changes have been implemented.  That
was why I proposed to move to 2.14.
> 
>> I'd propose that we release 2.14 very soon, as a good way to get out of the
>> mess we're currently in.
> 
> I propose to release a buildable 2.12.3 tarball, and to have name a
> stable and a development branch.  Numbering isn't all that interesting,
> but linux also has that: you need [at least] two [more or less] active
> branches if you are willing to do some kind of sane release management.
> IMHO, of course :-)

Sounds reasonable to me.

I don't want to speak for Graham, but I think the original proposal was made
to avoid development effort spent in backporting.  But I can't think of a
good way to avoid backporting if it's desired to have bugfixes on the stable
release.

Carl