[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GOP2-2b - Stable 2.16.x releases (dictator) (probable decision)
From: |
John Mandereau |
Subject: |
Re: GOP2-2b - Stable 2.16.x releases (dictator) (probable decision) |
Date: |
Wed, 01 Aug 2012 20:10:26 +0200 |
Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 18.08 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
> Hmm. I can't answer this directly, but I'll pass along my
> considerations:
>
> - if you try to compile GUB on debian unstable (or any other
> recent distro), you will likely encounter odd compile failures.
> These are important to fix at some point in time (otherwise we'd
> be stuck GUB on ubuntu 10.04 only), and require a great deal of
> knowledge of compilers and searching for solutions online.
> OTOH, it might just work "out of the box" in which case it'll
> just take 6-12 hours and then be working.
With my Fedora installation on that Core 2 Duo (x86_64), GUB Python
program has screwed up dependencies (it missed a lot of them) in a
consistent way across different Fedora versions, and when I reported it
I got not clue on debugging the intricated Python code of GUB, so I
think my next attempt at building GUB will be a chrooted Debian stable.
Now I've freed my main machine from lilypond-patchy-staging, I can more
easily build a GUB in background while doing other things, reporting how
it progresses and asking for help if needed.
> - I think that supporting build numbers will be an easier
> introduction to version number handling in GUB and our docs than
> jumping straight into 4-tuples. The first step is to make it
> work in "make website", which is infinitely easier than trying
> to do anything in GUB. This is a relatively easy thing to fix,
> so it might make sense to leave it for a relative beginner...
> OTOH, the bug has existed for two years, so might as well tackle
> it now.
I guess that if we want the release number in "make website", we want it
in HTML footers and manuals, don't we?
> Also, David is quite likely to want to use build
> numbers if they are available.
> (whereas I'm happy to say "screw users" or "screw version
> numbers" and either not bother updating with -2 if there's a
> serious problem, or else bump to .x+1 one day after a .x
> release; neither of those options are particularly ideal for a
> stable branch)
IMHO patch level numbers are cheap, as it doesn't often happen to
release twice within two or three days.
Best,
John
- Re: GOP2-2b - Stable 2.16.x releases (dictator) (probable decision), (continued)
- Re: GOP2-2b - Stable 2.16.x releases (dictator) (probable decision), John Mandereau, 2012/08/01
- Re: GOP2-2b - Stable 2.16.x releases (dictator) (probable decision), Graham Percival, 2012/08/01
- Re: GOP2-2b - Stable 2.16.x releases (dictator) (probable decision), John Mandereau, 2012/08/01
- Re: GOP2-2b - Stable 2.16.x releases (dictator) (probable decision), David Kastrup, 2012/08/01
- Re: GOP2-2b - Stable 2.16.x releases (dictator) (probable decision), Graham Percival, 2012/08/01
- Re: GOP2-2b - Stable 2.16.x releases (dictator) (probable decision), David Kastrup, 2012/08/01
- Re: GOP2-2b - Stable 2.16.x releases (dictator) (probable decision), John Mandereau, 2012/08/01
- Re: GOP2-2b - Stable 2.16.x releases (dictator) (probable decision),
John Mandereau <=
- Re: GOP2-2b - Stable 2.16.x releases (dictator) (probable decision), Graham Percival, 2012/08/01
- Re: GOP2-2b - Stable 2.16.x releases (dictator) (probable decision), John Mandereau, 2012/08/03
- Re: GOP2-2b - Stable 2.16.x releases (dictator) (probable decision), Graham Percival, 2012/08/03