Jonas Hahnfeld <hah...@hahnjo.de> writes: > 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?
I always confuse the two. So 2.19.84 then. > 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... That's what I need the two-week window for. I got stuck in some patches that turned out a rebasing nightmare. I'll likely just skip over them and continue. >> And I don't want significant delay for 2.21.0 afterwards. Does that >> help you deciding on a comment? -- David Kastrup
