Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 20.51 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
I was particularly thinking of the download links and links to
docs (on both the Downloads page and the Development page). That
needs to do build number - python - texinfo macros - html. But
at least it's fully
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 07:42:34PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 20.51 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
I was particularly thinking of the download links and links to
docs (on both the Downloads page and the Development page). That
needs to do build number -
Copying to user list because of the LSR angle.
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
** Regressions
(mostly copied from an email by Trevor)
So far there have been c. 75 critical regressions under the
current definition of ’critical’ since 2.14. All but one have been
fixed,
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 12:31:55PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
At the time the 2.16 branch will be cut, the versioning for the unstable
branch will need to advance to 2.17 in order to maintain an ordered
relation between version numbers and LilyPond language.
Do you mean 2.16 instead of 2.17
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 12:31:55PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
At the time the 2.16 branch will be cut, the versioning for the unstable
branch will need to advance to 2.17 in order to maintain an ordered
relation between version numbers and
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 02:37:58PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
What versioning should I be using for the release
candidates? Numerically, one has the options to start with
2.15.95
why not 2.15.42 ?
Because the 2.16 branch is
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 02:37:58PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
What versioning should I be using for the release
candidates? Numerically, one has the options to start with
2.15.95
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 03:21:34PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
If it is non-operative, it should be either made operative or removed.
There is no point dragging it along as purely dead weight we should not
be using.
Sure, patches
Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 15.21 +0200, David Kastrup ha scritto:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 02:37:58PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
If it is non-operative, it should be either made operative or removed.
There is no point dragging it along as
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 03:21:34PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
If it is non-operative, it should be either made operative or removed.
There is no point dragging it along as purely dead weight
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 04:15:34PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
I'm sometimes slow to react (up to one week for making a patch), but I'm
willing to help with version number management in the build system if
this definitely appears to be the route to go with.
Regardless of the question of
Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 15.52 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
Regardless of the question of having a tuple of four values, it
would be nice to support build numbers, i.e. 2.15.43-2:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=977
This definitely requires work in both
John Mandereau john.mander...@gmail.com writes:
Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 15.52 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
Regardless of the question of having a tuple of four values, it
would be nice to support build numbers, i.e. 2.15.43-2:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 06:36:14PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 15.52 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
Regardless of the question of having a tuple of four values, it
would be nice to support build numbers, i.e. 2.15.43-2:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
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
Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 19.26 +0200, David Kastrup ha scritto:
Build numbers are not all that relevant for _us_ as far as I can tell.
They distinguish different versions compiled from the _same_ canonical
source (so they don't belong into our VERSION file at any rate).
Changes may be
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
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:10:26PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 18.08 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
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
Mostly unchanged from last week's proposal; I think we're pretty
much decided on this, but we'll still have another week for final
objections.
http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_3.html
** Summary
Let’s appoint David Kastrup as the “benevolent dictator” of the
stable/2.16 git branch.
***
19 matches
Mail list logo
