On 11-10-25 05:44 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
There are several independent ones. Since their respective pushability
depends on the order in which they will get applied, I don't see that
changing their status to Patch-push or Patch-countdown would be
appropriate.
You vetoed using dev/staging for preparation of a mergeable sequence of
independent patches with corresponding automatic convert-ly updates.
Since the automatic updates need to be combined with their respective
patches for disruptive syntax changes (changes that don't work without
running convert-ly), I don't see a sensible way around stepping the
version number in between the patches.
I don't see Rietveld up to the task of reviewing all that suitably.
I'll prepare such a sequence, but I have no idea how it can make it
through the policies.
In the interests of 'get it done and make the paper work agree', would
you and Graham let me know which issues/patches are going through
slightly different channels? I gather that most or all of this would be
Rietveld only, so it's essentially invisible to the policy weeny, but if
I can stay out of the way, I'd be glad to turn the blind eye.
Colin
--
I've learned that you shouldn't go through life with a catcher's mitt on both
hands.
You need to be able to throw something back.
-Maya Angelou, poet (1928- )
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
