On Sat, 2022-10-08 at 23:23 +0200, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> Le 07/10/2022 à 23:48, Dan Eble a écrit :
> > On Oct 7, 2022, at 13:51, Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond
> > development wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2022-10-06 at 08:39 +0200, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> > > > A factor that I was startin
Le 07/10/2022 à 23:48, Dan Eble a écrit :
On Oct 7, 2022, at 13:51, Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond development
wrote:
On Thu, 2022-10-06 at 08:39 +0200, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
A factor that I was starting to forget in my enthusiasm for branching is
!1510 (source locations). Here I
On Oct 7, 2022, at 13:51, Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond
development wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2022-10-06 at 08:39 +0200, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
>> A factor that I was starting to forget in my enthusiasm for branching is
>> !1510 (source locations). Here I am guilty of taking forever to pr
On Thu, 2022-10-06 at 08:39 +0200, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> A factor that I was starting to forget in my enthusiasm for branching is
> !1510 (source locations). Here I am guilty of taking forever to prepare
> the latest version of that patch. I am open to opinions on whether it
> should be inclu
On Wed, 2022-10-05 at 22:57 +0200, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote:
> >
> Forgive me for piping up - it's very well possible that I'm saying
> something terribly stupid, as I'm not really familiar with the
> procedures involved in creating a stable release.
>
> But here's how I read the current discus
> So how about the following plan:
>
> !1510 could perhaps be merged faster than usual for an MR on Review,
> !e.g. on Saturday (it has already been reviewed and the latest
> !update was minor changes, I tried a different approach but it was
> !too complex so I eventually went back to the previo
Le 05/10/2022 à 22:57, Lukas-Fabian Moser a écrit :
Honestly, I think that your criteria for creating pre-release of 2.24
are too rigid. As far as I can see, doing a 2.23.80 release *right
now* is the way to go.
Fine, if you disagree with the plan laid out in August, I invite you to
volunt
On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 2:36 PM Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond
development wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-10-05 at 17:23 +, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > > There are two dimensions here: First, I personally think it doesn't
> > > make sense to create a stable branch from a random commit. It
>
>> Honestly, I think that your criteria for creating pre-release of
>> 2.24 are too rigid. As far as I can see, doing a 2.23.80 release
>> *right now* is the way to go.
>
> Fine, if you disagree with the plan laid out in August, I invite you
> to volunteer taking care of the releases and the rel
Le 05/10/2022 à 16:57, Werner LEMBERG a écrit :
[Jonas]
and now it seems you went back to feature development.
Why is this a problem? Isn't the idea that a release is based on a
'stable' branch, and that normal development continues on 'master'?
I think there is a misunderstanding. !1658 (
Honestly, I think that your criteria for creating pre-release of 2.24
are too rigid. As far as I can see, doing a 2.23.80 release *right
now* is the way to go.
Fine, if you disagree with the plan laid out in August, I invite you to
volunteer taking care of the releases and the related procedu
On Wed, 2022-10-05 at 17:23 +, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > There are two dimensions here: First, I personally think it doesn't
> > make sense to create a stable branch from a random commit. It
> > doesn't have to be perfect, but it should fulfill some basic
> > criteria of "stable". This is bes
> There are two dimensions here: First, I personally think it doesn't
> make sense to create a stable branch from a random commit. It
> doesn't have to be perfect, but it should fulfill some basic
> criteria of "stable". This is best tested after a development
> release, which is what the origi
On Wed, 2022-10-05 at 14:57 +, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> >
> > Discussions on MRs opened during the weekend also showed me that
> > we're not even on one page for what should still go in before
> > branching,
>
> As mentioned, I leave this decision to you: Please define a commit
> that you want
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> I think we should branch now. What do others think?
>>
>> Needless to say that I agree, but as you witnessed nobody else
>> bothers to reply.
>
> Sorry, I got the impression that we already made a decision to do so.
> For the record, I also agree.
>
>> Discussions on MR
>> I think we should branch now. What do others think?
>
> Needless to say that I agree, but as you witnessed nobody else
> bothers to reply.
Sorry, I got the impression that we already made a decision to do so.
For the record, I also agree.
> Discussions on MRs opened during the weekend also s
On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 03:40:03PM +0200, Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on
LilyPond development wrote:
> > Silence means consent.
>
> How can you consent to a question, whether to branch or not? This
> time I even explicitly asked for thoughts. A (stable) release should
> be a team effort, that
On Wed, 2022-10-05 at 15:08 +0200, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> Le 05/10/2022 à 14:48, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
> > On Sun, 2022-10-02 at 16:22 +0200, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> > > I think we should branch now. What do others think?
> >
> > Needless to say that I agree, but as you witnessed nobody else
Le 05/10/2022 à 15:08, Jean Abou Samra a écrit :
Le 05/10/2022 à 14:48, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
On Sun, 2022-10-02 at 16:22 +0200, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
I think we should branch now. What do others think?
Needless to say that I agree, but as you witnessed nobody else bothers
to reply.
Le 05/10/2022 à 14:48, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
On Sun, 2022-10-02 at 16:22 +0200, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
I think we should branch now. What do others think?
Needless to say that I agree, but as you witnessed nobody else bothers
to reply.
Silence means consent.
For you, when would be a goo
On Sun, 2022-10-02 at 16:22 +0200, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> I think we should branch now. What do others think?
Needless to say that I agree, but as you witnessed nobody else bothers
to reply. Discussions on MRs opened during the weekend also showed me
that we're not even on one page for what shou
Le 02/10/2022 à 16:05, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
Ivan pushed a "generic" implementation using signal handlers, so no
inline asm needed. In my quick test so far, this seems to solve the
crashes that I am able to reproduce even without the workaround I put
in place for 2.23.13. There's a "scary" war
On Thu, 2022-09-22 at 20:03 +0200, Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on
LilyPond development wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-09-21 at 20:16 +0200, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
>
> > Now to GC. I'm a bit worried by the report from "Ya Gloops"
> > that some 200-pages scores still crash
> > (https://lists.gnu.org/archi
On Wed, 2022-09-21 at 20:16 +0200, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> Le 21/09/2022 à 08:29, Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond
> development a écrit :
> > Hi all,
> >
> > according to the plan laid out in
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2022-08/msg00032.html
> > we are suppos
Le 21/09/2022 à 08:29, Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond
development a écrit :
Hi all,
according to the plan laid out in
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2022-08/msg00032.html
we are supposed to branch stable/2.24 this week "unless some really big
problems are reported"
On Wed, 2022-09-21 at 09:43 +0100, Kevin Barry wrote:
> > In the last discussion on this topic in
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2022-09/msg00070.html
> > the rare crashes on Windows were identified as a blocker. These
> > seem to be fixed now, at least for reasonable user sc
On Wed, 2022-09-21 at 12:35 +0200, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> Le 21/09/2022 à 09:36, Andrew Bernard a écrit :
> > Hello Jonas,
> >
> > As the present 'owner' of OLL I never thought OLL was a critical
> > dependency of Lilypond. This has never been my understanding. I
> > believe there is an issue
Le 21/09/2022 à 09:36, Andrew Bernard a écrit :
Hello Jonas,
As the present 'owner' of OLL I never thought OLL was a critical
dependency of Lilypond. This has never been my understanding. I
believe there is an issue with edition engraver, but I can't see how
that should stop a significant Lil
On Wed, 2022-09-21 at 17:36 +1000, Andrew Bernard wrote:
> Hello Jonas,
>
> As the present 'owner' of OLL I never thought OLL was a critical
> dependency of Lilypond. This has never been my understanding. I believe
> there is an issue with edition engraver, but I can't see how that should
> sto
> In the last discussion on this topic in
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2022-09/msg00070.html
> the rare crashes on Windows were identified as a blocker. These seem to
> be fixed now, at least for reasonable user scores (we can still trigger
> it when running the garbage colle
Hello Jonas,
As the present 'owner' of OLL I never thought OLL was a critical
dependency of Lilypond. This has never been my understanding. I believe
there is an issue with edition engraver, but I can't see how that should
stop a significant Lilypond release. If people depend on the edition
e
Hi all,
according to the plan laid out in
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2022-08/msg00032.html
we are supposed to branch stable/2.24 this week "unless some really big
problems are reported". In the last discussion on this topic in
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-deve
32 matches
Mail list logo
