Re: the latest convert-ly fiasco

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> I've lost track of where we are with convert-ly.
>>
>> I have just ran update-with-convert-ly.  I saw a flag change from
>> 2.15.10.  I have pushed that.
>>
>> I know that there are other syntax changes that people want to
>> make.  Somebody make a patch with all those changes, for version
>> 2.15.16.  Once that patch is pushed, I'll release 2.15.16, so that
>> we can start with a clean slate from 2.15.17 onwards.
>>
>>
>> I am not going to try to make any general guidelines for
>> convert-ly at the present time.  When I am feeling better, we will
>> resume GOP, and we'll get a definite set of instructions for
>> syntax changes.  Until then, just do whatever works, and if it's
>> useful to have a couple of extra releases just to avoid combining
>> multiple syntax changes in the same version number, so be it.
>
> I know why I prefer to do patches that are upwards-compatible in
> syntax...

Ok, whichever of the outstanding reviews with syntax changes gets its
approval first, gets its conversion rule updated to 2.15.16 (did not
notice the bump of PATCH_LEVEL in VERSION, but it's pointless redoing
the reviews because of that), then pushed to dev/staging in a form
suitable for bijection.  Then I wait for the official version bumb to
2.15.17, and do the next ruleset if it gets approved until then.

Lost about two days of work in trying to figure out procedures and
adhering to them.

-- 
David Kastrup