On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:07:38 +0200 David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote:
> Since 2.14 is no longer able to compile on current versions of GCC, we > are getting to the situation where current GNU/Linux distributions are > no longer able to release _any_ stable version of LilyPond with > corresponding source code unless they patch the source themselves > (which kinda defeats the purpose of using a stable upstream version) > and/or juggle with compiler flags. That's a good idea. > It is a reasonably safe bet that we won't have a stable release 2.16 > in the next two months given our current release policies and policy > change policies and their past effects on release candidates. So it > is also a reasonably safe bet that we'll miss the respective freeze > windows of the autumn GNU/Linux releases. I believe it means that the policies should be adjusted. Maybe there should be a stable branch that would become 2.16. It's frustrating not to see the results of contributions for months or even years. > As a sort of emergency measure, I would consider it sensible if we > did a source-only release of 2.14.3 or, if you want to, 2.14.2a, the > same as 2.14.2 plus cherry-picked compilation fixes. Namely just > what it takes to get 2.14.2 through the current compilers. Let's not play games with the version numbers. 2.14.3 is what it should be. I believe there was a case when a GNU package was released with packaging problems (missing files or something). Then the fixed package was released with a letter "a" attached. But this would be a real maintenance release, so an incremented number would be appropriate. Please also consider including issue 2030, later re-reported as 2562. The fix is a straightforward backport. Perhaps there are more issues of that kind. We could include a couple of fixes. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
