[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs |
Date: |
Tue, 9 Jun 2009 07:12:37 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 03:56:25PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen 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.
>
> 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
If only we had a high-visibility lilypond-proposals mailist, so
that nobody would miss stuff like that... :)
> 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?
Dunno. Is this an automatic tagging? I'm still trying to figure
out what branch/tags are done automatically by GUB.
I definitely agree that stable/2.12 should contain the last stable
(i.e. the stuff that was in 2.12.2, or now 2.12.3).
> - I will release a final 2.12 release, and begin 2.13.0.
>
> there is really no such thing as a final release.
Sure there is. If we don't make any later releases, then we have
a final one! :)
> 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.
Given the lack of people interested in maintaining backports, the
proposal is that we just say "wait for 2.14".
> makes me frown. Has 2.13 development been opened already?
Yes, IIRC early Feb.
> 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.
They don't wait for months. If there's important stuff to be
added, then we stop the stable release and move to development
releases.
> > 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 :-)
I disagree. I think that having 2.12, followed by 1-3 months of
bugfix updates, then a gap of 4 months, then 2.14, works fine.
The "gap" is as far as normal users are concerned. Developers
will have 2.13 releases during that "gap".
This is mostly what we've been doing anyway -- sure, 2.10 reached
.8 or .10, but at some point, we all said "not worth backporting
stuff" and we ignored it for a year or so. All updates were 2.11.
I'm just proposing that we make this "laziness" official. To
counteract the gap between stable releases, we make many more
stable releases -- 3-4 releases each year. If I hadn't been in
Singapore, we'd be working on 2.15 right now, having already
released 2.14, finished the stable maintenance, and moved into
2.15.
The plan right now is:
- clarify the maoing git repos
- finish the CG (other than the programming chapter)
- check with Han-Wen about updating libs (pango, fontforge,
mftrace, whatever)
- start 2.14 release procedures.
We'd potentially release 2.14 by the end of this month.
Francisco: no, I haven't forgotten about giving notice to the
translators, and giving them a week or two to finalize stuff.
Cheers,
- Graham
- stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2009/06/08
- Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs,
Graham Percival <=
- Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2009/06/09
- Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs, Anthony W. Youngman, 2009/06/11
- Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs, Graham Percival, 2009/06/09
- Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2009/06/10
Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2009/06/09