Re: Stable release.

[David Kastrup]

Jean-Charles Malahieude <address@hidden> writes:

> Le 26/06/2012 09:24, Graham Percival disait :
>> Well, we had at least a week when the only release-critical bug
>> was the po-replace translation thing.  It's a bit silly that we
>> couldn't have a release due to a 5-line texinfo documentation
>> thing, and in retrospect I should have done a "hostile revert"
>> (especially since the commit in question didn't go through any
>> review or countdown).  But since the developer survey was coming
>> up, I didn't want to open any new wounds.  Also, I was more sick
>> of arguments than normal, so again I didn't want to start a new
>> fight.
>>
>
> Issue 2524: Patch: CG: add updating of lilypond.pot in the release
> process
> Reported by address@hidden, May 8, 2012
> CG: add updating of lilypond.pot in the release process
> http://codereview.appspot.com/6195060
>
> Comment 1 by address@hidden, May 8, 2012
> This goes together with  issue 2520 .
>
> Comment 2 by project member address@hidden, May 8, 2012
> Patchy the autobot says: LGTM.
> Labels: -Patch-new Patch-review
>
> Comment 3 by project member address@hidden, May 8, 2012
> (No comment was entered for this change.)
> Labels: -Patch-review Patch-countdown
>
> Comment 4 by address@hidden, May 10, 2012
> CG: add updating of lilypond.pot in the release process
> http://codereview.appspot.com/6195060
>
> Comment 5 by project member address@hidden, May 10, 2012
> Coutdown extended to 20120513
>
> Comment 6 by project member address@hidden, May 13, 2012
> Counted down to 20120513, please push
> Labels: -Patch-countdown Patch-push
>
> Comment 7 by address@hidden, May 14, 2012
> Pushed as
> f7d264fa89c39f8d86e9ba5eb991ee904ce3d0be
>
> Please, Graham, read before writing nonsense! or express it in another way.

I think he has been rather talking about the situation outlined in
comment 15 to 19 when the already reverted change was pushed with
modifications that were not subjected to review and apparently did not
work for Graham.

I probably should not be the one saying this, but we are not in short
supply of problems and don't need to economize.  There is no real need
for turning one problem of communication into several ones.

-- 
David Kastrup