Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2020, 17:30 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup: > Jonas Hahnfeld < > hah...@hahnjo.de > > writes: > > > Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2020, 16:25 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup: > > > > OK. So what is your proposal for how to proceed with Jonas' patch? > > > > > > Different possibilities. Probably easiest is to have different GUB > > > setups for LilyPond-2.20 and LilyPond-2.22. Then we can stick with > > > Python2 (and PowerPC installers, yuch) for as long as 2.20 is a thing > > > but move on otherwise. > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2020-01/msg00041.html > > > > -> I'd propose to just create a branch for GUB from the current > > commit. > > It would be my guess that a different target could be more convenient, > but my GUB knowledge is close to nil.
I mean to propose that we just keep a copy (= branch) of GUB's current specs and use that for future 2.20.x > > > Jonas > > > > > 2.20 should be out soonish, and we definitely > > > don't want to have that patch gather bitrot. > > > > P.S.: Can't decide on a comment for this one > > 2.19.85 is in Phil's queue (though it's a bit unclear when it will > surface) and a 2.20 window of 2 weeks was suggested by me in Salzburg > for final fixes after it's out. Where did 2.19.84 go? Looking at stable/2.20, you didn't pick the other commits that I proposed back in November? That's a bit unfortunate because it means there are quite some known issues with the new release... Jonas > And I don't want significant delay for 2.21.0 afterwards. Does that > help you deciding on a comment?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
