> make a build
>
> --
> Phil Holmes
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jonas Hahnfeld" <
> hah...@hahnjo.de
> >
> To: "Han-Wen Nienhuys" <
> hanw...@gmail.com
> >
> Cc: "David Kastrup" <
> d...@gnu.org
> &g
t;
Cc: "David Kastrup" ; "lilypond-devel"
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2020 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: 2.21.0 release plans and considerations
Am Donnerstag, den 05.03.2020, 19:50 +0100 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 2:16 PM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
> > > * I'd base it off Git commits rather than tarballs. The tarballs are
> > > anachronistic, and with git commits, it will be easier to build binaries
> > > for pe
On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 2:16 PM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
> > * I'd base it off Git commits rather than tarballs. The tarballs are
> anachronistic, and with git commits, it will be easier to build binaries
> for pending changes (to make sure they don't break the process).
>
> Nope, I'm not a huge fan
Am Donnerstag, den 05.03.2020, 11:45 +0100 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 9:46 AM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
> > The basic idea is to produce native binaries with all dependencies
> > compiled as static libraries, with dependencies only on the most basic
>
> I applaud that, but I r
On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 9:46 AM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 04.03.2020, 09:34 +0100 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys:
> > On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 3:12 PM Jonas Hahnfeld <
> > hah...@hahnjo.de
> > > wrote:
> > > For example, I'd very much like #5799 to be part of 2.21.0 to be able
> > > to cros
Am Mittwoch, den 04.03.2020, 09:34 +0100 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys:
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 3:12 PM Jonas Hahnfeld <
> hah...@hahnjo.de
> > wrote:
> > For example, I'd very much like #5799 to be part of 2.21.0 to be able
> > to cross-compile to x86_64-w64-mingw32 and show-case a replacement for
> >
On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 3:12 PM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
> For example, I'd very much like #5799 to be part of 2.21.0 to be able
> to cross-compile to x86_64-w64-mingw32 and show-case a replacement for
> GUB. However I acknowledge that the changes have at least the potential
> to break the current pro
Jonas Hahnfeld writes:
> Sure, the solution is to apply #5799. Turns out the solution is not
> only for x86_64-w64-mingw32 but also for 32 bit mingw that GUB
> uses. So I'm arguing that it should go in before 2.21.0 is cut.
Well, the rationale for being conservative with new patches is so that
w
Am Montag, den 02.03.2020, 19:38 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Jonas Hahnfeld <
> hah...@hahnjo.de
> > writes:
>
> > Am Montag, den 02.03.2020, 10:48 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld:
> > > Am Sonntag, den 01.03.2020, 15:39 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> > > > But fortunately, we are now at the point
Jonas Hahnfeld writes:
> Am Montag, den 02.03.2020, 10:48 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld:
>> Am Sonntag, den 01.03.2020, 15:39 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> >
>> > But fortunately, we are now at the point where 2.20 _and_ 2.21 are going
>> > to be a thing rather soon. Assuming that things like
Am Montag, den 02.03.2020, 10:48 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld:
> Am Sonntag, den 01.03.2020, 15:39 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> >
> > But fortunately, we are now at the point where 2.20 _and_ 2.21 are going
> > to be a thing rather soon. Assuming that things like the Python3
> > migration don't
Am Sonntag, den 01.03.2020, 15:39 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>
> But fortunately, we are now at the point where 2.20 _and_ 2.21 are going
> to be a thing rather soon. Assuming that things like the Python3
> migration don't cause more of a standstill for 2.21.0 than we imagine,
> but then one ca
Jonas Hahnfeld writes:
> could you maybe flag those patches under review that you think should
> not go in? I guess everybody considers the own changes to be
> "important", so I'm not 100% sure which patches fall under that
> category.
"Important" is absolutely no criterion. It has been easy to
Hi David,
Am Sonntag, den 01.03.2020, 14:28 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Recently I asked the list to consider not putting any changes in master
> right now where we'd like to be able to figure out whether they are
> "introduced after 2.21.0" or not. At least with regard to build system
> chang
Recently I asked the list to consider not putting any changes in master
right now where we'd like to be able to figure out whether they are
"introduced after 2.21.0" or not. At least with regard to build system
changes but likely also some other ones, it's probably safe to say that
this ship has
16 matches
Mail list logo
