Re: 2.21.0 release plans and considerations

[Jonas Hahnfeld]

Hi David,

Am Sonntag, den 01.03.2020, 14:28 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Recently I asked the list to consider not putting any changes in master
> right now where we'd like to be able to figure out whether they are
> "introduced after 2.21.0" or not.  At least with regard to build system
> changes but likely also some other ones, it's probably safe to say that
> this ship has sailed.
> 
> In order to get out a timely 2.21.0 reference, however, the original
> plan still is not to merge translations (in order to avoid another
> unforeseeable holdup) and release basically immediately (which will
> likely amount to a week) after 2.20.0.  The desire for 2.21.0 to serve
> as a reference point is still there, so if people could hold up anything
> that has the chance to render 2.21.0 into something that will not
> compile or work for a significant number of use cases, that would
> improve our chances to make it such a reference point.
> 
> It would be really unfortunate if we had to hold up on merging
> translations and thus paving the ground for a large catchup of the
> translators to the master branch for longer than it takes to get out
> 2.21.0 as a reference point for the start of the 2.21 series.
> 
> So please, for any commits to staging in the next week, consider that
> they may be part of 2.21.0 without further correction.  2.21.0 is
> certainly not as seminal a point as 2.20.0 and people using unstable
> releases are strongly encouraged to frequently update.  But for the sake
> of a nice start-off, I think it would be nice to consider it with
> somewhat less levity than, say, 2.21.37 (assuming that we don't cut 2.22
> before reaching there).
> 
> Thank you for your understanding!

could you maybe flag those patches under review that you think should
not go in? I guess everybody considers the own changes to be
"important", so I'm not 100% sure which patches fall under that
category. That's maybe also due to lack of knowledge what has caused
problems in the past.

For example, I'd very much like #5799 to be part of 2.21.0 to be able
to cross-compile to x86_64-w64-mingw32 and show-case a replacement for
GUB. However I acknowledge that the changes have at least the potential
to break the current process using GUB.

Jonas

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part