Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > On 11/16/19, 1:52 PM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > > > Dear Team, > > > > It seems to me like we are pretty much in shape such that we should > > release 2.20. I'd be fine if we called 2.19.83-1 the 2.20 release, > > even if there are some critical regressions. 2.19.83 is SO much > > better than 2.18.2. > > > > IIUC, the only thing 2.20 is waiting on is for David K. to cherry-pick > > some patches. Is that correct? > > And putting out a new prerelease to be sure that those are ok, and > waiting for the translators to catch up with cherry-picked patches > containing stuff to be translated. > > But the current roadblock is David K. cherry-picking some patches. > > Is the reason for cherry-picking such a big list of patches to avoid > some regressions?
THIS IS NOT A LIST FOR CHERRY-PICKING!!!! It is a unculled list of potential candidates that _may_ need or want to be cherry-picked, in case a particular candidate is either a) fixing a regression b) fixing a problem that will foreseeably cause trouble with near-future or our current build systems c) fixing a problem or providing a feature that will foreseeably cause frequent tension between 2.20 and 2.21 users if not cherry-picked d) a definite improvement that does not show potential for causing new regressions e) a documentation fix/change matching 2.20 behavior and/or/maybe a) cherry-picks reasonably painlessly b) does not cause significant followup tasks to be also scheduled > Or are these patches that were created after we put out the last > pre-release? Minus those I already cherry-picked > Would you like me to try doing the cherry-picking for you? If anybody tries indiscriminately picking that list, I am going to be pissed. The majority of those patches likely has no place in 2.20. -- David Kastrup
