On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 01:04:16PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote: > > On 4/16/11 12:50 PM, "Han-Wen Nienhuys" <hanw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > My proposal is that "ready-to-release" still is not strict enough for > > stable, so 2.14 version should be coming from something which moves > > slower than the master branch. > > So does this mean we need three branches? > > stable (currently 2.12.x) > stable beta (currently stable/2.14) > development (currently 2.13.x)
Well, we already have more than three branches. In your scheme, they'd be stable/2.12, stable/2.14, and master. > It seems to me that we ought to have three releases available: > > stable -- demonstrated to work properly > stable beta -- all syntax from stable works, passes regtests, but not > demonstrated to be critical regression free. Should be acceptable for > general release, but not for production work. > development -- passes regtests. Recommended for developers and adventurous > users, but possibility exists for syntax changes. > > Does this seem feasible? I'm not going to make three releases, because it's too confusing for users. We'll have two releases: stable and unstable. At the moment, we only have unstable releases happening. They happen from stable/2.14. Anybody wanting to play with git master right now needs to compile from source. Once 2.14 is out, we'll have stable releases happening from stable/2.14 and unstable releases happening from git master. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel