On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 11:33:56 +0200
John Mandereau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's almost sure that there won't be one person alone left that will
> have enough time and energy to do as much as you do, but I hope we are
> enough people to be able to make GDP live for a few months after
> you've g
On 2008/05/31, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 09:28:50 +0200
> John Mandereau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > An unsure question is, should big doc work like GDP go on on master
> > after 2.12?
>
> No, because barring a miracle, there won't be anybody[1] left to do
> big doc work.
On 2008/05/30, Graham Percival wrote:
> Slight update from my "you'd have to be crazy..." comment: how
> about we have a two-month "beta releases" period? We're
> occasionally criticized for not doing this anyway, and if the code
> is stable but the docs need more work, calling it a "beta" sounds
2008/5/31 John Mandereau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> can't be disturbed by any breakage or brain surgery on master. It would
> also make sure doc changes are sooner available to end users, and it
I have no plans of any brain surgery.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~h
On Sat, 31 May 2008 10:05:11 +0100
"Trevor Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Really, the whole point of GDP is to reduce the burden of doc
> > maintenance. Barring writing new docs for new features (which I
> > can't predict), I expect that maintaing the .itely files will be
> > about 2 hou
Graham Percival wrote Saturday, May 31, 2008 8:54 AM
On Sat, 31 May 2008 09:28:50 +0200
John Mandereau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
An unsure question is, should big doc work like GDP go on on master
after 2.12?
No, because barring a miracle, there won't be anybody[1] left to do
big doc work.
On Sat, 31 May 2008 09:57:47 +0200
John Mandereau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking of, may I document check-texi-refs.py usage in
> writing-texinfo.txt? Currently it's only documented in a Git commit
> message :-/
Sure, go ahead.
Cheers,
- Graham
_
On 2008/05/30, Graham Percival wrote:
> We're on track for a release in Aug.
I'll be away from Aug 3rd until Aug 23th, I may be able to have a
limited Internet connection at this time but will have little time, so
I'd prefer we release 2.12 before the end of July if possible.
> - the translatio
On Sat, 31 May 2008 09:28:50 +0200
John Mandereau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An unsure question is, should big doc work like GDP go on on master
> after 2.12?
No, because barring a miracle, there won't be anybody[1] left to do
big doc work.
[1] Trevor, I mean no offense whatsoever when I impl
On 2008/05/30, Francisco Vila wrote:
> From my humble position, I beg you please, please, \repeat unfold 10 {
> please, } to make possible that translated docs are updateable on
> stable, after release.
Sure, they are, as long as the stable branch is regularly released.
An unsure question is, sho
2008/5/30 Francisco Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/5/30 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Then, from a bugs perspective, we are ready to release 2.12.
>
> I know there are workarounds, but the winner from user's point of view
> seems to be #504 'Leopard', it is starred by 16 people (others
2008/5/30 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Then, from a bugs perspective, we are ready to release 2.12.
I know there are workarounds, but the winner from user's point of view
seems to be #504 'Leopard', it is starred by 16 people (others are by
a maximum of 2, I think) Despite of the workar
On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:21:54 -0300
"Han-Wen Nienhuys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then, from a bugs perspective, we are ready to release 2.12.
Slight update from my "you'd have to be crazy..." comment: how
about we have a two-month "beta releases" period? We're
occasionally criticized for not d
On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:21:54 -0300
"Han-Wen Nienhuys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The status is that we have 97 defects left, of which one regression,
> and one marked high. After fixing these, I'll go through the list once
> more to pick the low-hanging fruit.
Speaking of low-hanging fruit, how
2008/5/30 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Thanks for this work, Valentin!
>
> The status is that we have 97 defects left, of which one regression,
> and one marked high. After fixing these, I'll go through the list once
> more to pick the low-hanging fruit. Then, from a bugs perspective, w
Thanks for this work, Valentin!
The status is that we have 97 defects left, of which one regression,
and one marked high. After fixing these, I'll go through the list once
more to pick the low-hanging fruit. Then, from a bugs perspective, we
are ready to release 2.12.
What's that status for the
2008/5/28 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Valentin,
Hi,
> However, to be sure that there are no gaping bugs left, we should go
> over the bugtracker before 2.12 is released.
I have processed all non-Accepted issues, and all Accepted issues
older than a year. I have also verified recen
On Wed, 28 May 2008 11:00:28 -0300
"Han-Wen Nienhuys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have now fixed almost all regressions, and there is only 1 issue
> left that I definitely want to fix before 2.12.
FWIW, these two bugs are particularly annoying for the docs:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/i
Hi Valentin,
You are currently the Bugmeister, right?
We have now fixed almost all regressions, and there is only 1 issue
left that I definitely want to fix before 2.12.
However, to be sure that there are no gaping bugs left, we should go
over the bugtracker before 2.12 is released.
* there are
19 matches
Mail list logo
