lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Can GUB-build stable/2.20 [was Re: Still cannot build GUB with stabl


From: John Mandereau
Subject: Re: Can GUB-build stable/2.20 [was Re: Still cannot build GUB with stable/2.20 branch]
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 22:27:07 +0100
User-agent: Evolution 3.30.5-1

On Wed, 2019-03-20 at 12:53 +0000, Phil Holmes wrote:
> I understand this would be possible if someone puched a change to 
> release/unstable without it going through staging/master.  However,
> in the 
> life of LilyPond I don't think it has ever happened. so may not be
> worth 
> being too concerned about?

If you alternatively use such a branch with the same name for builds of
stable and development releases, then it's worth being concerned about
deleting that branch after each use; if instead you use different
temporary branches for these two kinds of releases, then you only have
to care that the temporary branch head is a parent of the head of the
base branch you're considering when starting a release process.


> An alternative would be simply to treat release/unstable as
> temporary? 
> Delete it after each GUB build and recreate before.  I follow
> Garaham's old 
> practice of simply following the instructions on the CG to the
> letter, so we 
> would need to add these steps in.

Exactly, this is what I detailed below in my previous email. Before I
submit a patch to the CG, I'd like to make you validate these details
by practice at least once.


> So - to summarise - you're suggesting not building from stable/2.20
> but from 
> a new (temporary) branch, and therefore updating the new branch
> rather than 
> pushing any changes to release/2.20 before a build?  That sounds
> very 
> sensible.

This is not a new idea, it's exactly how I suppose you've been doing
for releases in the development branch.



> > Oh, and I suppose we keep using 2.19 major/minor version on
> > stable/2.20
> > branch at the moment.
> 
> Yes - I think my failure to do that broke the links on the website.

What kind of breakage do you mean?
There was some breakage because of coexistence of 2.19 and 2.21 active
branches, which wasn't supported in the website build (issue 5477), but
which has been fixed, and which may not be a consequence of your
actions for rolling a release.

Best,
John




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]