Re: Stable release.

[Pavel Roskin]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:07:38 +0200
David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:

> Since 2.14 is no longer able to compile on current versions of GCC, we
> are getting to the situation where current GNU/Linux distributions are
> no longer able to release _any_ stable version of LilyPond with
> corresponding source code unless they patch the source themselves
> (which kinda defeats the purpose of using a stable upstream version)
> and/or juggle with compiler flags.

That's a good idea.

> It is a reasonably safe bet that we won't have a stable release 2.16
> in the next two months given our current release policies and policy
> change policies and their past effects on release candidates.  So it
> is also a reasonably safe bet that we'll miss the respective freeze
> windows of the autumn GNU/Linux releases.

I believe it means that the policies should be adjusted.  Maybe there
should be a stable branch that would become 2.16.  It's frustrating not
to see the results of contributions for months or even years.

> As a sort of emergency measure, I would consider it sensible if we
> did a source-only release of 2.14.3 or, if you want to, 2.14.2a, the
> same as 2.14.2 plus cherry-picked compilation fixes.  Namely just
> what it takes to get 2.14.2 through the current compilers.

Let's not play games with the version numbers.  2.14.3 is what it
should be.

I believe there was a case when a GNU package was released with
packaging problems (missing files or something).  Then the fixed
package was released with a letter "a" attached.  But this would be a
real maintenance release, so an incremented number would be appropriate.

Please also consider including issue 2030, later re-reported as 2562.
The fix is a straightforward backport.  Perhaps there are more issues
of that kind.  We could include a couple of fixes.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin