Graham Percival writes:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 03:37:30PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Colin Hall writes:
>>
>> > Absolutely. I thought that we had adopted this proposal:
>> >
>> > http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_3.html
>>
>> So what?
>>
>> The policy is: David Kastrup has sole a
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 03:37:30PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Colin Hall writes:
>
> > Absolutely. I thought that we had adopted this proposal:
> >
> > http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_3.html
>
> So what?
>
> The policy is: David Kastrup has sole authority over what goes into
> st
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> As said before, it's probably best if all developers actually use the
> `stable' code since noone likes to switch between branches (due to the
> enormous compilation hurdles).
You mean having to recompile each time when you switch from stab
> Last time around, we released 2.17.0 in the _wake_ of releasing
> 2.16.0, and only _then_ the extensive skyline patches were placed
> into 2.17 and 2.17.1 was released with them. That worked reasonably
> well. We don't have the resources for parallel development and
> testing, and it does not
James writes:
> On 11 March 2013 16:34, m...@mikesolomon.org wrote
>>
>> I like the idea of freezing right away and releasing after two
>> weeks of critical-bug-free lily. What is difficult for me is
>> setting the freeze down the line without being able to wrap up
>> work f
Hello,
On 11 March 2013 16:34, m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
> On 11 mars 2013, at 16:32, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>
> >
> > David Kastrup wrote Sunday, March 10, 2013 5:32 PM
> >
> >> 2.16 is growing old.
> >>
> >> So I want to see 2.18 soon. That means we need to stabilize work that
> >> has al
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> - Original Message -
> From:
> To: "Trevor Daniels"
> Cc: "David Kastrup" ;
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Freezing for 2.18
>>
>> I like the idea of freezing right away and rel
"m...@mikesolomon.org" writes:
> On 11 mars 2013, at 16:32, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>>
>> I'd also like to propose we adopt the same controls as we did for
>> 2.16, if David is willing, since that also worked well. That way
>> we'll get a clear plan - what must be fixed, what must be documente
- Original Message -
From:
To: "Trevor Daniels"
Cc: "David Kastrup" ;
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Freezing for 2.18
I like the idea of freezing right away and releasing after two weeks of
critical-bug-free lily. What is difficult for me i
On 11 mars 2013, at 16:32, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>
> David Kastrup wrote Sunday, March 10, 2013 5:32 PM
>
>> 2.16 is growing old.
>>
>> So I want to see 2.18 soon. That means we need to stabilize work that
>> has already been done and cut down on experiments in the master branch.
>
> Agree
"Trevor Daniels" writes:
> David Kastrup wrote Sunday, March 10, 2013 5:32 PM
>
>> At any rate, I'd like to aim for 2.18 at about the end of May, and
>> getting into serious freeze at the end of April. A focus on bug
>> fixes, in particular bugs introduced in the 2.17 development cycle,
>> sho
David Kastrup wrote Sunday, March 10, 2013 5:32 PM
> 2.16 is growing old.
>
> So I want to see 2.18 soon. That means we need to stabilize work that
> has already been done and cut down on experiments in the master branch.
Agreed.
> Stabilizing means more or less accepting the current feature
Janek Warchoł writes:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:53 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Uh Janek? We have _never_ made a branch for stable releases until
>> after we reached a state of convergence. The problem is that in
>> order to get a stable release from a wobbly starting base, we need
>> testers
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:53 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Uh Janek? We have _never_ made a branch for stable releases until after
> we reached a state of convergence. The problem is that in order to get
> a stable release from a wobbly starting base, we need testers. If all
> developers move on t
Janek Warchoł writes:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:37 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>> Add some doc updates and translations if they are available, or make
>>> them known issues if not. As Janek says, anything else goes into a
>>> branch.
>>
>> That's exactly what the disagreement is about. This
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:37 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Add some doc updates and translations if they are available, or make
>> them known issues if not. As Janek says, anything else goes into a
>> branch.
>
> That's exactly what the disagreement is about. This "anything else goes
> into a bra
Colin Hall writes:
> Janek Warchoł writes:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:59 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> So I see us at a crossroads here: either we decide we want to have a
>>> stable release in a reasonable point of time in the near future, or we
>>> decide we don't want to plan for a stable
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:06 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Janek Warchoł writes:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:59 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> So I see us at a crossroads here: either we decide we want to have a
>>> stable release in a reasonable point of time in the near future, or we
>>> de
Janek Warchoł writes:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:59 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> So I see us at a crossroads here: either we decide we want to have a
>> stable release in a reasonable point of time in the near future, or we
>> decide we don't want to plan for a stable release anytime soon.
>>
>>
Janek Warchoł writes:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:59 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> You see me as "one person imposing a limit" because I brought up the
>> issue of a stable release here. But I did not bring up the issue out of
>> spite and malice but because I realized that the kind of open-ended
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:59 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> You see me as "one person imposing a limit" because I brought up the
> issue of a stable release here. But I did not bring up the issue out of
> spite and malice but because I realized that the kind of open-ended
> changes not leading to any
"m...@mikesolomon.org" writes:
> On 10 mars 2013, at 22:30, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>
So, to resume, I agree that a freeze is important. When the freeze
kicks in, I'd rather that we say something like "no new big projects
starting on date X will be par
On 10 mars 2013, at 22:30, David Kastrup wrote:
> Werner LEMBERG writes:
>
>>> So, to resume, I agree that a freeze is important. When the freeze
>>> kicks in, I'd rather that we say something like "no new big projects
>>> starting on date X will be part of 2.18" so that developers can plan
>>
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> So, to resume, I agree that a freeze is important. When the freeze
>> kicks in, I'd rather that we say something like "no new big projects
>> starting on date X will be part of 2.18" so that developers can plan
>> out their next few months accordingly.
>
> +1
Actually,
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 6:32 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Ok folks, it is this time of the year again: I am trying to make myself
> unpopular.
>
> I want to see 2.18 soon. That means we need to stabilize work that
> has already been done and cut down on experiments in the master branch.
I agr
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> I just put out the announcement because I feel we should now stop
>> accumulating stuff that will require half a year to reach a stable
>> state. We need to focus on dealing with what we have in the queue
>> right now rather than heaving new things into master that will
On 10 March 2013 22:05, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> If a refined interface can defuse these cases as well, it would
> certainly seem like a good step to take.
Thank you for this wise message.
> Well, the question is always the balance between gain and pain. Where
> the pain is not an im
> I just put out the announcement because I feel we should now stop
> accumulating stuff that will require half a year to reach a stable
> state. We need to focus on dealing with what we have in the queue
> right now rather than heaving new things into master that will be
> beneficial to end user
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> So, to resume, I agree that a freeze is important. When the freeze
>> kicks in, I'd rather that we say something like "no new big projects
>> starting on date X will be part of 2.18" so that developers can plan
>> out their next few months accordingly.
>
> +1
Well, "ne
Xavier Scheuer writes:
> On 10 March 2013 20:56, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> I think there have been two issues crystallized out from it.
>>
>> a) \bar "|:" and \bar ":|" are a frequent cause for surprise, and the
>>return value one gets for dealing with that surprise, a direct way
>>for
> So, to resume, I agree that a freeze is important. When the freeze
> kicks in, I'd rather that we say something like "no new big projects
> starting on date X will be part of 2.18" so that developers can plan
> out their next few months accordingly.
+1
Werner
___
On 10 March 2013 20:56, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> I think there have been two issues crystallized out from it.
>
> a) \bar "|:" and \bar ":|" are a frequent cause for surprise, and the
>return value one gets for dealing with that surprise, a direct way
>for specifying the desired look for t
m...@mikesolomon.org writes:
> On 10 mars 2013, at 18:54, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> "m...@mikesolomon.org" writes:
>>
>>> On 10 mars 2013, at 18:32, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok folks, it is this time of the year again: I am trying to make
>>> myself
>>> unpopular.
>>>
>>> There's a
Am 10.03.2013 20:56, schrieb David Kastrup:
Marc Hohl writes:
Am 10.03.2013 18:32, schrieb David Kastrup:
Ok folks, it is this time of the year again: I am trying to make myself
unpopular.
[...]
So I want to see 2.18 soon. That means we need to stabilize work that
has already been done and
Marc Hohl writes:
> Am 10.03.2013 18:32, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Ok folks, it is this time of the year again: I am trying to make myself
>> unpopular.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> So I want to see 2.18 soon. That means we need to stabilize work that
>> has already been done and cut down on experiments in
On 10 mars 2013, at 18:54, David Kastrup wrote:
> "m...@mikesolomon.org" writes:
>
>> On 10 mars 2013, at 18:32, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Ok folks, it is this time of the year again: I am trying to make
>> myself
>> unpopular.
>>
>> There's a time of the year for that?
>>
>> It a
Am 10.03.2013 18:32, schrieb David Kastrup:
Ok folks, it is this time of the year again: I am trying to make myself
unpopular.
[...]
So I want to see 2.18 soon. That means we need to stabilize work that
has already been done and cut down on experiments in the master branch.
Stabilizing means
"m...@mikesolomon.org" writes:
> On 10 mars 2013, at 18:32, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Ok folks, it is this time of the year again: I am trying to make
> myself
> unpopular.
>
> There's a time of the year for that?
>
> It also means that commits of the "this really does nothing, bu
On 10 mars 2013, at 18:32, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Ok folks, it is this time of the year again: I am trying to make myself
> unpopular.
There's a time of the year for that?
> It also means that commits of the "this really does nothing, but it
> prepares the ground for $xxx, and I don't know j
Ok folks, it is this time of the year again: I am trying to make myself
unpopular.
2.16 is growing old. Now you might go "Huh?", but here are salient
points:
a) \override/\revert syntax is increasingly becoming an issue on the
mailing list. There are also related commands that are affected.
40 matches
Mail list logo
