[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 2.20 and 2.21 release plans
From: |
Jonas Hahnfeld |
Subject: |
Re: 2.20 and 2.21 release plans |
Date: |
Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:06:53 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.34.4 |
Am Montag, den 17.02.2020, 14:59 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Jonas Hahnfeld <
> address@hidden
> > writes:
>
> > Am Montag, den 17.02.2020, 13:25 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> > > Ok, I think 2.20 is basically done and we should push it out by the end
> > > of this week. This leaves a few days for the translation team to catch
> > > up with the current state.
> >
> > Wohoo!
> >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > What does this mean for 2.21.0? I think we should aim to push it out
> > > fast afterwards, basically a few days later at most, just to get kinks
> > > with webpage/versioning from 2.20 ironed out.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > For more extensive changes of internals and/or syntax, I would recommend
> > > to let them sit till 2.21.1 before committing, assuming that we _do_
> > > manage to get 2.21.0 out fast. Why? 2.21.0 has by now quite
> > > significantly diverged from 2.20.0. If something does not quite work,
> > > it would be nice to have a _released_ version to compare to, and nothing
> > > but 2.21.0 would really serve that role satisfactorily. Particularly
> > > where problems are detected a long time after getting introduced, having
> > > an installable version as a reference is nice, and "it stopped working
> > > in 2.21.0" is enough of a quagmire already that we do not really want to
> > > add a lot more here.
> >
> > Sounds good (well, Python 3 is already in). To be sure: This also means
> > we'll be using GUB for 2.21.0? I'd like to propose a new system (yes,
> > *with* support for Windows) soon, but not sure that I can make it in
> > the next week or so...
>
> Yes, GUB for 2.21.0. We don't want to have another indeterminate
> backlog on unstable releases. That means that GUB needs to get switched
> over to Python 3.
For those following along: It's not that we need to convert GUB to
Python 3, just switch the dependencies of the LilyPond spec.
> It may make it more prudent, should we need to
> release 2.20.1 at some time, to also go to the cherry-picking nightmare
> required to bring stable/2.20 up to Python 3.
My point of view remains: Just keep an old version of GUB around and
we're fine for 2.20.x, x > 0.
Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- 2.20 and 2.21 release plans, David Kastrup, 2020/02/17
- Re: [translations] 2.20 and 2.21 release plans, Jean-Charles Malahieude, 2020/02/17
- Re: [translations] 2.20 and 2.21 release plans, David Kastrup, 2020/02/17
- Message not available
- Re: [translations] 2.20 and 2.21 release plans, Federico Bruni, 2020/02/20
- 2.20.0 release coordination with translation, also Germans? (was: [translations] 2.20 and 2.21 release plans), David Kastrup, 2020/02/20
- Re: 2.20.0 release coordination with translation, also Germans? (was: [translations] 2.20 and 2.21 release plans), Federico Bruni, 2020/02/20
- Re: 2.20.0 release coordination with translation, also Germans?, David Kastrup, 2020/02/20
- Re: [translations] Re: 2.20.0 release coordination with translation, also Germans?, Federico Bruni, 2020/02/20
- 2.20.0 release coordination with translation. Other showstoppers? (was: 2.20.0 release coordination with translation, also Germans?), David Kastrup, 2020/02/22