On 1/21/12 9:45 AM, "Graham Percival" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 05:27:00PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: >> I would very much prefer the work on Issue 2240 (aka 2070) to make it >> into 2.16. It is a significant API change that should not occur during >> a stable release series, and it paves the way for making the music >> function work continue smoothly enough that backporting further >> enhancements into a stable 2.16 series would be feasible. > >IMO, significant API changes should not happen right before a >release. Version numbers are cheap; why not have 2.18 in March >2012? Backporting is a huge hassle. > Earlier, we expressed a need to have stable mean *stable*, i.e. no syntax changes necessary for some period of time. We wanted stable versions to have a significant lifetime so things like LilyPondTool and Frescobaldi didn't need to always keep changing. If we still want to have that policy, I believe that subversion numbers are cheap, but stable version numbers are expensive. I think we'd be best to try to get this into 2.16. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
