Re: 2.21.0 release plans and considerations

[Jonas Hahnfeld]

Am Donnerstag, den 05.03.2020, 19:50 +0100 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 2:16 PM Jonas Hahnfeld <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > * I'd base it off Git commits rather than tarballs. The tarballs are 
> > > anachronistic, and with git commits, it will be easier to build binaries 
> > > for pending changes (to make sure they don't break the process).
> > 
> > Nope, I'm not a huge fan of doing this and actually I'd argue that
> > tarballs are easier: Just run 'make dist' for your local changes. With
> > GUB (which is entirely based on git commits for the LilyPond spec?), I
> > always need to push the changes to a public repository. This has cost
> > me quite some time in the past days and it just doesn't feel right when
> > I want to quickly iterate with local changes.
> > 
> 
> You don't have to push to a public repo. You can just pull from local 
> repository, no? I think file:/// urls work with Git too.

Yes and no: GUB hard-codes the URL of the public repo, see 
https://github.com/gperciva/gub/blob/master/gub/specs/lilypond.py#L23
It's entirely possible that I'm missing the obvious option to change
this in GUB, but I don't want to go into the spec and hack it manually
in there every time I need it. Just pointing at a self-contained tar is
so much easier...

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