Paul <p...@paulwmorris.com> writes: > On 06/07/2017 04:34 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > >> tomorrow I am leaving for physical therapy. > > Hope it goes well David! > >> So how is it going to end up? Barring objections, I'll probably branch >> off a stable release branch early next week. I'll have to see what to >> cherry-pick into this branch as fixes proceed, and possibly what to >> revert when it is not clear that functionality provided by recent >> patches/changes can be considered stable in use and interface. >> >> I don't think that we should need much more than the 3-week maturing >> period corresponding to the expected physical therapy duration. >> >> The alternative of releasing 2.18.3 since 2.18.2 does not even compile >> using gcc-7 anymore is something I want to avoid. >> >> So I'd rather pitch for a timely release of 2.20. There have been a few >> critical bugs flagged, however. I'll take a look at them eventually but >> if someone else has a good idea... > > Sounds good to me. I have a few things I'd like to get into the > stable release, one way or another, if possible. > > - Some CSS edits for the docs that I started but havent > finished/submitted for review yet. I'll try to get that done in the > next few days if I can.
Shouldn't matter a lot regarding stable/unstable but we should get the bikeshedding finished by release time. > - Might be worth looking again at issue 3884, either to just go with > the initial patch for now, or try for one of the other approaches in > that discussion? > https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/3884/ Ugh, looks like another ball I dropped. I'll take to pencil and paper some time tomorrow. > - This doesn't really matter, but it might be worth renaming the > "staffLineLayoutFunction" context property (which is not really about > staff lines...) to something better, maybe > "pitchToStaffPositionFunction" or pitchToStaffPositionProcedure"? (It > takes a pitch and returns an integer indicating a vertical staff > position. It's used in note-heads-engraver.cc) Well, discussion needs to have converged really well for changes to preexisting conventions to get into stable: we don't really want to do gratuitous changes that might get changed again or do not provide a definite payback for the hassle. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
