[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue 2648 in lilypond: Repeat Dots and Staff Size in 2.15.41
From: |
Trevor Daniels |
Subject: |
Re: Issue 2648 in lilypond: Repeat Dots and Staff Size in 2.15.41 |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:09:20 +0100 |
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, July 10, 2012 1:19 PM
> "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> We have the technology to identify the commits that introduce bugs
>> fairly easily. Perhaps once the first release candidate is made we
>> simply say any commit that introduced a critical regression bug after
>> that is simply reverted, and the originator invited to resubmit after
>> the next stable is released.
>
> After the stable release is before the stable release. We can't freeze
> development while we are unable to get a sane release process going.
> That would be, like, permanent.
That's not what I said. I said "once the first release candidate is made".
After that point we deal with new regressions by reverting, and don't
start a new countdown, rather than starting a new countdown only
after the bug is fixed, as now. That would guarantee we get a stable release
within the period we allow for testing the release candidate. Although
if this were adopted we might extend the testing period a little.
> One could try such a revert strategy on a stable release _branch_, but
> it is not unlikely to lead to cascades of reverts, since quite a few
> fixes are also intended to cure regressions by themselves. And reverts
> of increasingly older commits have increasingly stranger interactions
> with developments that happened in between (and that does not just mean
> merge conflicts).
If such a complication did arise then that would justify requiring a
proper fix, in which case a new countdown would begin only
after the fix was in.
I guess we really need an analysis of recent critical bugs to come
to a rational conclusion.
Trevor
clear policy discussions (was: Issue 2648 in lilypond: Repeat Dots and Staff Size in 2.15.41), Graham Percival, 2012/07/10
- Re: clear policy discussions, David Kastrup, 2012/07/10
- Re: clear policy discussions, Graham Percival, 2012/07/10
- Re: clear policy discussions, David Kastrup, 2012/07/10
- Re: clear policy discussions, Graham Percival, 2012/07/10
- Re: clear policy discussions, David Kastrup, 2012/07/11
- Re: clear policy discussions, Janek WarchoĊ, 2012/07/13