Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs

In message <1244571546.25811.584.ca...@heerbeest>, Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes I talked with Han-Wen about 2.10. The reason that we got up to 2.10.*33*, is that with git, doing stable bugfix releases is almost painless. Very little effort. We have small, contained patches/commits, that can be ve

Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs

Op dinsdag 09-06-2009 om 16:22 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Graham Percival: > The 2.12 release caught almost everybody off guard, and in particular > it pissed off some of the translators. Ah yes, a truly unexpected xmas present. I remember. > So there I was saying "DON'T TOUCH STABLE" so tha

Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs

On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 03:56:25PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > Wow, should have read those. I guess you can pretty much do what you > want, however, a few things really strike me as odd or unwise > >DON'T TOUCH STABLE/2.12. > > why create a "stable/2.12" branch and then not use it and d

Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs

Op dinsdag 09-06-2009 om 07:12 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Graham Percival: > Dunno. Is this an automatic tagging? I'm still trying to figure > out what branch/tags are done automatically by GUB. Release tags are inserted by GUB. Branching is done manually, developers must decide to what bra

Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs

On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 12:53:55PM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Graham > Percival wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 12:15:36PM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > >> This is completely backwards: the definition of a stable release (or > >> rather: stable branch),

Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Graham Percival wrote: > Err, did you send this privately deliberately? > > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 12:15:36PM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Graham >> Percival wrote: >> > That's true.  However, I chose to avoid having bugfixes

Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs

[oops - forgot the list] On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Graham > Percival wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 08:07:57AM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: >>> >>> On 6/9/09 7:56 AM, "Jan Nieuwenhuizen" wrote: >>> >>> > I propose to release a

Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs

On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 08:07:57AM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: > > On 6/9/09 7:56 AM, "Jan Nieuwenhuizen" wrote: > > > I propose to release a buildable 2.12.3 tarball, and to have name a > > stable and a development branch. Numbering isn't all that interesting, > > but linux also has that: y

Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs

On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 03:56:25PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > Op dinsdag 09-06-2009 om 07:16 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Carl D. > Sorensen: > > > There was an announced policy of rapid releases that discouraged spending > > time on backporting, since we were going to move forward more ra

Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs

On 6/9/09 7:56 AM, "Jan Nieuwenhuizen" wrote: > Op dinsdag 09-06-2009 om 07:16 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Carl D. > Sorensen: > >> There was an announced policy of rapid releases that discouraged spending >> time on backporting, since we were going to move forward more rapidly on >> releas

Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs

Op dinsdag 09-06-2009 om 07:16 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Carl D. Sorensen: > There was an announced policy of rapid releases that discouraged spending > time on backporting, since we were going to move forward more rapidly on > releasing new stable branches. > >

Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > Op maandag 08-06-2009 om 17:12 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Jan > Nieuwenhuizen: > >> As it turns out after discussing with Han-Wen, it seems that >> 2.12.2 was released from MASTER after stable/2.12 was branched. >> Don't ever do that! ;-

Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs

On 6/9/09 2:12 AM, "Jan Nieuwenhuizen" wrote: > > ... the stable branch that I now recreated, from master > at tag release/2.12.2-1, *was* that actually bugfixing, > cautious development? > Or does our 2.12.2 release include new, risky development? As far as I know, 2.12.2 has no new, risky

Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs

Op maandag 08-06-2009 om 17:12 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Jan Nieuwenhuizen: > As it turns out after discussing with Han-Wen, it seems that > 2.12.2 was released from MASTER after stable/2.12 was branched. > Don't ever do that! ;-) Looking further into this, I found that our lilypond-2.12.2 ta

Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs

On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 05:12:34PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > As it turns out after discussing with Han-Wen, it seems that > 2.12.2 was released from MASTER after stable/2.12 was branched. > Don't ever do that! ;-) Ok, I've added this to the CG. > Also, I have regenerated the stable/2.12 b