Re: Stable release proposal

[Trevor Daniels]

Carl, Although I'm not a current developer, I'd like to comment.

In general I agree, but with the caveats below:

Carl Sorensen wrote Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:27 AM


> So after hearing from most of the currently-active developers, I think a
> reasonable goal for 2.16 would be:
>
> 1) Work through the outstanding issues involved in issue 2070  -- Don't
> wrap EventChord around all note heads.  This is probably a big issue, but
> I think with David working on it it will happen quickly once we work
> through the issues.  To me, this is the biggest outstanding issue, but I
> think it will be worth tackling.

This looks like a big undertaking.  I think we need to be advised
by David about this.  Well worth doing if he is agreeable and
confident.

> 5) Remove translations if they are not updated to 2.16.  The 2.14/2.15
> manuals can be used if desired.  Having non-updated manuals removed may
> serve as an incentive to get them all translated.

I'd prefer to see all translations carried forward, even though they
are incomplete, much as we carry forward the English documentation,
even though much of it is incomplete.

> B) Guile 2.0.  I think there's enough going on with Guile 2.0 on their
> side (adding local-eval back in) that we shouldn't push this for the next
> stable release.

Leave out.  This looks as if it needs a long run in.

Werner wrote:

> Normally, a route to a stable release means a code freeze, applying
> only fixes to problems within the code.  This also means that no new
> bug fixes get applied.  Are we going to do the same?

I think Werner means fix only things that are not working as
advertised, but defer fixes that are improvements to layout.
If so, I agree.

Trevor