Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

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.
> 
> <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel/19122/match=now>
> 
> <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel/19064/match=release>
> 
> <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel/19130/match=release>

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 do subsequent
2.12.x releases from master?  Why not create stable/2.12 when master
branches off for 2.13 development?

   - I will release a final 2.12 release, and begin 2.13.0.

there is really no such thing as a final release.  In this 2.12.2,
we have seen ja doc glitches, and gcc-4.4 updates.  There's always
the possibility that a user finds a real silly problem that you want
to make a new stable release for.

Esp. this one

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel/19064/match=release

makes me frown.  Has 2.13 development been opened already?  Is it
wise to ask people to sit on their patches for *months*?  I know
that for me such a thing would be one of the biggest discouragements
to do development.  Also, I had the impression that the quick turnover
time was one of the really attractive things of lily development.

And *if* we are doing new linux kernel style of development, where
are the point releases?  We would never see a 2.13, we'd go 2.12.2.0,
2.12.2.1...2.12.2.6, --> new stable 2.12.3.

> I'd propose that we release 2.14 very soon, as a good way to get out of the
> mess we're currently in.

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: you need [at least] two [more or less] active
branches if you are willing to do some kind of sane release management.
IMHO, of course :-)

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
Avatar®: http://AvatarAcademy.nl    | http://lilypond.org