Re: line_count issues

[Benkő Pál]

2012/9/18 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> Benkő Pál <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> hi David,
>>
>> I saw you marked line_count related issues for backport.
>> is that my task, yours or common?
>
> Mine.
>
>> what should or can I do?
>
> I was actually planning to contact you in private about this.  I am in
> the somewhat unfortunate situation of having admitted the line_count
> changes into 2.16.0 where they cause changes including definite
> regressions for some previous behavior, regressions that are not
> continuing into 2.18.  The task I am faced with is to bring 2.16.1 into
> a state where its behavior cures the regressions in 2.16.0 without
> creating a divergence.
>
> The goal is to be sure that people upgrading from 2.14.2 to 2.16.1 to
> 2.18.0 will not have to change some things for the first upgrade, and
> change it back again for the second one.  So 2.16.1 should not veer off
> the course only to get back.  For 2.16.0, I failed in that endeavor.
>
> The patches I have marked "Backport" are those that I have to take into
> consideration when deciding how to best fix that failure in 2.16.1.  I
> won't take material into 2.16.1 that has not previously been released in
> an unstable release and seen some exposure.  And I have to guess at the
> likelihood that it will be reversed or partly reversed before 2.18.
>
> The simplest course would be to reverse all the line_count material to
> 2.15.40 behavior.  However, there are definitely some things (like the
> time signature stuff) where I am reasonably sure they'll stick around in
> this form (because not much else makes sense as we figured out), so
> moving forward from 2.16.0 rather than backward makes sense.
>
> For other things, I just don't know yet.

how can I help?
I can try my regtests with 2.14; I can also create some new ones.
and that reminds me to something I wanted but forgot to ask: can
a new regtest be versioned to an old one (or it must be added per
the current version)?

p