On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:26:29 +0200 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Well, we've expected the next stable for months now. If the > expectation does not turn out true, it might make sense to get a > _timely_ report about just was the problem with 2.14. I am not > particularly fond of the message that putting out another 2.14 > version sends, but it is conceivable that a backport of code that has > become problematic would get to the finishing line earlier than 2.16 > does. Please don't release 2.14.3 just to placate Fedora. In my opinion, it should be released if there are important fixes since 2.14.2, in particular, fixes that would help Mutopia, LSR and other projects that run the latest stable release. Or maybe for security reasons - CPU frying mordents and stuff like that :) > Whether or not we (TM) decide to invest any amount of work into such a > backport, some feedback from downstream might help in pinpointing and > documenting the source of current problems, and thus create a bit more > of a time buffer for a qualified decision. Patching sources to make them compile on a distro is a job of a distro. We can help if they ask nicely. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
