On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 1:40 PM Jonas Hahnfeld <hah...@hahnjo.de> wrote: > > Am Sonntag, den 06.09.2020, 12:33 +0200 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys: > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 10:52 AM Jonas Hahnfeld <hah...@hahnjo.de> wrote: > > > > I think the real problem is that we don't know exactly how many > > > > problems there are that would be unacceptable in a stable release. So > > > > we need a way to coax people normally on stable releases to try out > > > > our current master, so we know where we are. Could we rename the > > > > current 2.21 as 2.22-RC1 or 2.21.90 and hopefully get some feedback? > > > > > > Well yes, that's the point of the whole thread, but I don't think we'll > > > get much feedback when continuing to break core functionality by usual > > > development. IMHO the bump to 2.21.90 (or some other high value) should > > > happen after branching, ie when it's really a release candidate. > > > We could of course have some smaller bump to advertise as alpha while > > > still working on master, but I doubt that would help much without some > > > kind of freeze... > > > > > > To reiterate the initial question: What would it take to get there? In > > > my opinion, that's equivalent to asking about critical issues that need > > > large changes to fix them. > > > > I am not aware of critical issues at the moment. (While the doc build > > refactoring has been disruptive, and still hasn't completely > > stabilized, it doesn't affect end-users directly.) > > > > I read over the commits with potential end-user impact since branching > > 2.21, > > Did you mean to say "branching stable/2.20" (commit 0712559601)? While
Yes. I browsed through at a lot of commits. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
