Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:50:07AM +0200, Federico Bruni wrote: >> BTW, as we have one critical bug, no release will happen on Wednesday? >> Or it's up to David? > > It will take over two weeks for GOP 2-2b stable 2.16 releases to > be accepted. Until then, we continue as normal.
And anyway, we had other regressions in 2.15.41, so according to the old metrics, 2.16.0 was already canceled because of other reasons. So the current question is rather about when to release 2.15.42. In order to have a good starting base for 2.16.0, it makes sense to go to the effort of rolling developer releases preferably after rather than before fixing critical bugs, as long as one feels reasonably sure that the kind of delay that this introduces is not large. While the excitement for the proposed plans certainly seems like a good motivator, the proposal was not "let's appoint someone who will release 2.16.0 right away in the state of current development". If we wanted that approach, we could instead have declared a release date. The changes are not intended to disrupt development. They are just intended to stop the (non-)release of 2.16.0 being a focus of despair and frustration. When we put that proposal in place, I'll holler when I consider any special action or non-action from developers to be required for making 2.16.0 happen. The main difference will be that the discovery of a regression does not make indulging on a two-week drinking bilge a safe bet for anybody not wanting to miss 2.16.0. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
