On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: > http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_4.html > > ** Proposal summary > > What went well, what went badly? This is a discussion only; it > will be summarized, and we will refer back to it in future policy > decisions, but no new policies will be decided in this round. > > We’ll have (at least) two sections: one for facts that anybody > considers relevant, and one for thoughts and commentary. >
Overall, I think this cycle took too long. We should strive to have policies that make each development release be a worthy stable candidate. That means -for example- being serious about * changes passing through the regtest * bugfixes and features always having a test to check against We should examine other reasons for the delay of the 1st candidate appearing, and the delay between the 1st and last release candidate, and figure out if there is a way to prevent them from causing large delays again. On a tangent: at Google I am working on a side-project that essentially is distcc on steroids; it will allow any compilation process (not just C/C++) to be distributed on a set of similar Linux machines (they must run the same OS and architecture), and I am going to open-source it. It could speed up GUB and regtest checking for those that have access to several machines. Anybody interested? -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
