Re: critical issues

[Janek Warchoł]

2012/1/3 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> I am afraid that we are painting ourselves into a corner.  And I don't
> think that we are doing ourselves a favor by defining "stable" as "a
> random moment when somebody managed to get GUB to run for Windows and
> OSX".  We should define "stable" based on the stability and state of the
> _actively_ happening development.  _That's_ what we should be cutting
> the stable branch from.  And _then_ try getting it ported timely to the
> platforms that have, lamentably, a rather lacklustre progress of
> releasable material and platform-specific development.  I see very
> little correlation between what I'd call a measure of stability, and
> what the current set of "Critical bugs" entails.

While this sounds reasonable, i'm not sure if a policy could be
written that would reflect your intentions; they're a bit too vague.
And even with current guidelines its always possible to say "i think
that we shouldn't make a stable release despite having 0 critical
issues, because current master is shabby and we have some major
changes going in the codebase".

I think that the problem may be that we don't organize our work (and
don't want to according to GOP7
http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_7.html).  In fact, we work quite
like a bunch of individuals doing really independent things all the
time; there are little to no efforts like "guys, let's fix that <and 5
people start collaborating on something>".

Janek