Re: Staging broken.

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

Here are the relevant parts of a correspondence between me and David.

> > "We have a situation where catering to several versions of Pango has
> > proven tricky to the degree of tripping you up."
> >
> > I think you see this patch as a proof that there is something
> > inherently tricky about working with Pango.
>
> The old interface is deprecated in current version, you want to tackle
> the warnings while the new interface is not available in all versions
> that are supposed to be supported after the patch.
>
> That is not inherently tricky about working with Pango, it means that
> the problem you are trying to tackle with the second one of the patches
> just does not have a good single non-#ifdefed solution within the
> version range you are trying to cover.  That was not obvious from the
> original patch without delving into Pango documentation.

Can you read the patches again, carefully? Neither of the two patches
change any functionality: HAVE_PANGO_FT2 is true since forever. The
RAII patch just moves the same calls to the same deprecated
function to a central place so there are less warnings.

> > I disagree; there is nothing special about this; the only problem is
> > that we need to get feedback of compiling against different Linux
> > distributions before we submit code. By contrast, staring at the code
> > longer, or letting it sit in countdown for more time is not going to
> > help.
>
> An "I am going to just do this; anybody have a better idea?  Otherwise I
> am just going to go ahead." would help avoid the impression that one
> considers other developers and their interests unnecessary baggage.
> It's not formal countdown, will add perhaps half a day to the delay of
> something that nobody knows to be urgent.  And if it is urgent, just
> mentioning the reason while going ahead will at least keep others in the
> loop.
>
> Part of the staging system process is to remove the sense of urgency
> that expresses itself in fixes shot from the hip and tends to get
> tempers higher rather than lower.
>
> [..]
>
> If you feel that it's pointless for anybody to see whether the
> dependencies can be resolved in a manner that appears more tenable for

It's not pointless to improve this, but it's also not mutually
exclusive with going ahead with the current 2 patches, which are
semantic no-op cleanups.

[..]

So, yes, please put these back on staging. If you find it breaks
somewhere somehow, I will come up with a way to fix and test it
quickly.

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 8:28 PM Jonas Hahnfeld <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 20.02.2020, 20:21 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> > Jonas Hahnfeld <
> > address@hidden
> > > writes:
> >
> > > Am Mittwoch, den 19.02.2020, 17:30 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> > > > David Kastrup <
> > > > address@hidden
> > > >
> > > > > writes:
> > > > > Han-Wen Nienhuys <
> > > > > address@hidden
> > > > >
> > > > > > writes:
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:19 AM Han-Wen Nienhuys <
> > > > > > address@hidden
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > +// Necessary for supporting pango_context_new() and
> > > > > > > > +// pango_context_set_font_map() in Pango < 1.22
> > > > > > > > +#define PANGO_ENABLE_BACKEND
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ..
> > > > > > > I'm preparing a docker image for my lilypond-ci scripts that lets 
> > > > > > > me check
> > > > > > > for this case too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I did this, see
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/hanwen/lilypond-ci/commit/145e1e0dcf61c74ff3278ebb1a0fedda17f08056
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it reproduces the failure. I added a fix, and verified it passes on 
> > > > > > Ubuntu
> > > > > > 19.04.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I pushed it to staging.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There should be a cleaner way than defining PANGO_ENABLE_BACKEND, 
> > > > > > but don't
> > > > > > have time to investigate now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Could you explain the urgency warranting an immediate hotfix bypassing
> > > > > all review, feedback and proper solution-finding?
> > > >
> > > > Moved this to dev/pango branch for now so that we have a chance to
> > > > discuss this.
> > >
> > > For the record, you seem to have pushed to commits to staging -> master
> > > again, right?
> >
> > Yes.  Han-Wen and I had an off-list discussion about the impact of the
> > changes, and they are at least not a regression in respect to the
> > previous state we had, even if they cannot reduce the number of warnings
> > in newer versions of Pango to zero while still supporting a range of
> > older versions.
>
> May I ask to have such discussion on-list for the next time? That's why
> we have a lilypond-devel, right?
>
> Jonas



-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen