"Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> writes: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> >> >> 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 > > > I think it would potentially be feasible to have a page with a variety > of builds of single binary types. This could potentially be managed a > la patchy, but the question is: if we had a set of, say Linux x86 > builds to try out, would people bother? > > It might make more sense to think about improved ways of creating > stable releases during a continuing development cycle.
Well, that was supposed to be related to that. Now Mike has chosen to blast ahead with a solution of his before I or someone else made a formal exposition of the basic problem. We will need to come to turns with how we will be trying to maintain a reasonable rate of stable releases without stifling forward-looking development more than is needed to not let the development diverge from the goal of stability terminally. This will certainly be a topic early in the 2.19 cycle which strictly speaking is already on. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
