Re: switching to Python 3.x

[David Kastrup]

Jonas Hahnfeld <address@hidden> writes:

> Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2020, 17:30 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Jonas Hahnfeld <
>> address@hidden
>> > writes:
>> 
>> > Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2020, 16:25 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> > > > OK. So what is your proposal for how to proceed with Jonas' patch?
>> > > 
>> > > Different possibilities.  Probably easiest is to have different GUB
>> > > setups for LilyPond-2.20 and LilyPond-2.22.  Then we can stick with
>> > > Python2 (and PowerPC installers, yuch) for as long as 2.20 is a thing
>> > > but move on otherwise.
>> > 
>> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2020-01/msg00041.html
>> > 
>> > -> I'd propose to just create a branch for GUB from the current
>> > commit.
>> 
>> It would be my guess that a different target could be more convenient,
>> but my GUB knowledge is close to nil.
>
> I mean to propose that we just keep a copy (= branch) of GUB's current
> specs and use that for future 2.20.x
>
>> 
>> > Jonas
>> > 
>> > > 2.20 should be out soonish, and we definitely
>> > > don't want to have that patch gather bitrot.
>> > 
>> > P.S.: Can't decide on a comment for this one
>> 
>> 2.19.85 is in Phil's queue (though it's a bit unclear when it will
>> surface) and a 2.20 window of 2 weeks was suggested by me in Salzburg
>> for final fixes after it's out.
>
> Where did 2.19.84 go?

I always confuse the two.  So 2.19.84 then.

> Looking at stable/2.20, you didn't pick the other commits that I
> proposed back in November? That's a bit unfortunate because it means
> there are quite some known issues with the new release...

That's what I need the two-week window for.  I got stuck in some patches
that turned out a rebasing nightmare.  I'll likely just skip over them
and continue.

>> And I don't want significant delay for 2.21.0 afterwards.  Does that
>> help you deciding on a comment?

-- 
David Kastrup