Jonas Hahnfeld <hah...@hahnjo.de> writes: > Am Montag, den 24.08.2020, 12:56 +0200 schrieb Jean Abou Samra: >> >> Right, I was oblique: the scripts are fragile at present, so >> branching release/2.22 now is no good in my opinion, but hopefully >> we can stabilize them faster than we stabilize LilyPond as a whole, >> and have that in 2.20.1 or 2.20.2. >> >> Can you explain why porting 50 commits from master to 2.20 is a bad idea? > > I think it's a bad idea because it goes against my basic understanding > that only bug fixes should be ported a stable branch. Here's the total > number of commits in stable/2.20 since branching: > $ git log --oneline release/2.20.0-1...release/2.19.65-1 | wc -l > 588 > > Sounds high at first, but most of that was translations, ie > $ git log --oneline release/2.20.0-1...release/2.19.65-1 -- $(ls | > grep -vE "Documentation|po") | wc -l > 268 > If only focusing on actual code changes: > $ git log --oneline release/2.20.0-1...release/2.19.65-1 -- flower/ > lily/ ly/ python/ scm/ scripts/ | wc -l > 198 > with the majority in "core" LilyPond: > $ git log --oneline release/2.20.0-1...release/2.19.65-1 -- lily/ ly/ scm/ | > wc -l > 148
It's worth stressing that the 2.20 branch persisted much longer before the 2.20 release than planned. So there were also some feature cherry-picks in order to avoid the situation that the 2.20 release would be "outdated from the start" with regard to some "must-have" features that would be expected to be common in suggested code on the mailing lists. So 2.20's history in some way reflects how to muddle through in a situation that became a lot different from planning. It's not really a template for how things should work. -- David Kastrup
