Re: GSoC 2020: backwards compatibility

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:45 AM Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > >> Werner (and the community in general), is backwards compatibility > >> important enough that I should try to take care of it before the > >> deadline? > > > > I think backwards compatibility is important enough that we should > > proba

Re: branching stable/2.22?

Jonas Hahnfeld writes: > Am Dienstag, den 25.08.2020, 07:51 -0600 schrieb Carl Sorensen: >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 7:13 AM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: >> > I know I'll regret it because I still don't know what objective >> > criteria others have, but as you really insist on a statement: >> > in the w

Re: branching stable/2.22?

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:17 PM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: > > I think the stabilization effort could be a joint effort by the entire > > dev team, by agreeing with the team to hold off on new features and > > invasive changes for a period of time (say, 1 to 2 months). > > My feeling is that we shoul

Re: branching stable/2.22?

Am Dienstag, den 25.08.2020, 07:51 -0600 schrieb Carl Sorensen: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 7:13 AM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: > > I know I'll regret it because I still don't know what objective > > criteria others have, but as you really insist on a statement: > > in the week of 14th of September (this

Re: branching stable/2.22?

Am Dienstag, den 25.08.2020, 22:56 +0200 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 8:31 AM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: > > I don't understand why you would want to backport features? IMO that's > > got nothing to do with how far the stable branch diverges. > > > > > Whatever the option, we wi

Re: branching stable/2.22?

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 8:31 AM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: > I don't understand why you would want to backport features? IMO that's > got nothing to do with how far the stable branch diverges. > > > Whatever the option, we will need people to manage the release (yes, I > > could possibly help next sum

Re: GSoC 2020: backwards compatibility

>> Werner (and the community in general), is backwards compatibility >> important enough that I should try to take care of it before the >> deadline? > > I think backwards compatibility is important enough that we should > probably have it before merging the code into master. Exactly. However,

Re: GSoC 2020: backwards compatibility

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:19 AM Owen Lamb wrote: > Hi all! > > Daniel drew my attention to the fact that my work doesn't keep backwards > compatibility with other fonts encoded in the LilyPond manner, such as > Gonville. He made a good point--it's definitely worth it to continue > supporting the

GSoC 2020: backwards compatibility

Hi all! Daniel drew my attention to the fact that my work doesn't keep backwards compatibility with other fonts encoded in the LilyPond manner, such as Gonville. He made a good point--it's definitely worth it to continue supporting the old format until Emmentaler reaches a reasonable SMuFL or "ext

Re: branching stable/2.22?

> I concur with the idea that a properly functioning full conversion to > Python 3 and workable (though not required) Guile 2 constitutes sufficient > change for the next stable version. No other features are needed. I agree with this. Kevin

Re: branching stable/2.22?

On Aug 25, 2020, at 09:51, Carl Sorensen wrote: > > Once we have an unstable release with the build system in good shape (all > the auxiliary scripts work well, the website builds correctly, the MacOS > build is functional at least on MacPorts), I'd be in favor of creating a > pre-release candida

Re: branching stable/2.22?

> Now go off tearing me apart. That one was a blow in my stomach.(In fact, I was about to write something similar in my last message.) Taking stock on the thread, my reactions were not appropriate, especially the fourth one which is rubbish. I should have anticipated that personal issues wou

Re: branching stable/2.22?

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 7:13 AM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: > > I know I'll regret it because I still don't know what objective > criteria others have, but as you really insist on a statement: > in the week of 14th of September (this year, 2020, just to be clear) > or put differently: right after 2.21.

Re: branching stable/2.22?

Am Dienstag, den 25.08.2020, 14:43 +0200 schrieb Jean Abou Samra: > > Le 25 août 2020 à 12:29, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit : > > > > Am Dienstag, den 25.08.2020, 12:06 +0200 schrieb Jean Abou Samra: > > > > Le 25 août 2020 à 08:30, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit : > > > > For me, creating the branch is nothi

Fwd: branching stable/2.22?

Forgot the list, sorry. Début du message transféré : > Expéditeur: Jean Abou Samra > Date: 25 août 2020 14:43:21 UTC+2 > Destinataire: Jonas Hahnfeld > Objet: Rép : branching stable/2.22? > > >> Le 25 août 2020 à 12:29, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit : >> >> Am Dienstag, den 25.08.2020, 12:06 +0200

Re: branching stable/2.22?

Am Dienstag, den 25.08.2020, 12:06 +0200 schrieb Jean Abou Samra: > > Le 25 août 2020 à 08:30, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit : > > > > Am Montag, den 24.08.2020, 22:10 +0200 schrieb Jean Abou Samra: > > > > > > > As sort of a shot in the dark, how about planning the 2.22 > > > > > > > release for May 2

Re: branching stable/2.22?

> Le 25 août 2020 à 08:30, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit : > > Am Montag, den 24.08.2020, 22:10 +0200 schrieb Jean Abou Samra: >> As sort of a shot in the dark, how about planning the 2.22 release for >> May 2021, for example? > > Do you mean branching stable/2.22 or releasing 2.22.