"Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> writes: > It seems to be fixing a problem we don't have. What would be the > benefit?
We have a problem reconciling potentially destabilizing work with the necessity to put out releases, in particular stable releases. That definitely _is_ a problem we have. I don't see Mike's particular proposal as currently tenable, either. > I would also mention that, for this to work, there would need to be > parallel documentation streams, too - otherwise users would read the > docs for A, assume it's in B and rightly complain if it wasn't. This > would entail 1) even _more_ confusion about which is the right doc set > to read and 2) an impossible upload. Currently my internet access is > screwed for about 5 hours every fortnight while I upload the new > version. I don't see I could lose it for 5 times that long. It would > also exceed my monthly quota in a single day. Well, this is one point we should likely be addressing at some point of time: we can probably cut down on platforms. Of course, that alone will not buy us enough leeway for a "5 times as much" scheme. If we have branches with personal interests, it must become more feasible for the respective authors with personal interests to provide binaries if they consider that a good idea. Any solution that will only work via the "Phil, do more" route is not going to scale. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user