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

stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs

Hi there, I'm in the process of updating the openSUSE packages to 2.12.2 and spent quite some time finding out why it didn't build and how changes in stable/2.12 came to be. Today I was asked almost the same question by the Ubuntu packager. Packagers still mostly release from tar balls instead of