On 11/30/10 1:04 AM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 06:37:08AM -0700, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> What about option 0 -- try to coordinate the resources we currently have
>> available on the critical issues?
>
> I would like that. I'm a bit surprised to see so many people
> tal
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> I'll wait another day for comments in case anybody missed it due to
> the savannah list downtime, but I despite my objection, I'll branch
> stable/2.14 in the next few days unless anybody speaks heavily against
> it.
It might be better to
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> Graham Percival wrote Tuesday, November 30, 2010 8:04 AM
>
>> I'm willing to try it as an experiment, but I
>> really doubt that having a separate branch would encourage more
>> people to spend more time on critical issues.
>
> It wouldn't,
Graham Percival wrote Tuesday, November 30, 2010 8:04 AM
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 06:37:08AM -0700, Carl Sorensen wrote:
What about option 0 -- try to coordinate the resources we
currently have
available on the critical issues?
I would like that. I'm a bit surprised to see so many people
t
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 06:37:08AM -0700, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> What about option 0 -- try to coordinate the resources we currently have
> available on the critical issues?
I would like that. I'm a bit surprised to see so many people
talking about branching a stable/2.14 -- I don't think that wo
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Valentin Villenave
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Patrick McCarty wrote:
>>
>> I also think it would be useful to have two code freezes on
>> stable/2.14: one for code/docs, and one for translations (right before
>> the release).
>
> (Of course it depen
On 11/29/10 4:49 AM, "Valentin Villenave" wrote:
> (PS. Perhaps now would be as good a time as any to publicly state that
> I'm leaving the project by the end of the year, partly due to
> aforementioned dissatisfactions. So whatever I might have to say until
> then can, and likely will, be safel
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> I also think it would be useful to have two code freezes on
> stable/2.14: one for code/docs, and one for translations (right before
> the release).
(Of course it depends on how much new work is done after stable/2.14
is branched off, but)
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
>
> 2) release 2.14 ASAP with no critical flaws, but with some kind of
> code freeze.
> Many software projects implement a "freeze" before a release --
> when the project is "frozen", this means that no changes are
> allowed, unless they
On 11/29/10 12:33 AM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> What do you think? This is not a vote, but I would like to hear
> from people. I am hoping that we can find a reasonable amount of
> consensus.
What about option 0 -- try to coordinate the resources we currently have
available on the critical i
Graham Percival wrote Monday, November 29, 2010 7:33 AM
With that in mind, I'm reopening the same question as the 24 Oct
email.
2) release 2.14 ASAP with no critical flaws, but with some kind of
code freeze.
I prefer a variant on this. Branch 2.14 now and apply only
patches to critical prob
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> 2) release 2.14 ASAP with no critical flaws, but with some kind of
> code freeze.
> Many software projects implement a "freeze" before a release --
> when the project is "frozen", this means that no changes are
> allowed, unless they hav
A brief reminder of the timeline:
- 18 Sep 2010: "we need to sort out various policies, but let's
wait until 2.14"
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-09/msg00178.html
- 22 Sep 2010: "alpha test 1 for 2.14, only 1 critical issue"
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-lilypond/2
13 matches
Mail list logo
