The majority of the issues you listed applies to master too. It would then
make sense to fix them in master first. No?
lasconic
2017-05-24 23:37 GMT+02:00 Marc Sabatella <[email protected]>:
> I guess my reason for talking about improving our process is to make it so
> if/when the time comes to consider a 2.1.2 as well, we don't put it off
> because our process is still too cumbersome. But I'm OK with not crossing
> that bridge until we get to it.
>
> I will see about submitting PR's on 2.2 for the issues I feel comfortable
> fixing myself.
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:16 PM Lasconic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So we are not talking about improving our process here. We are talking
>> about a 2.1.1.
>> Let's not overthink it. We have a 2.2 branch, I'm ready to merge any fix
>> in this branch. We just need to make sure we have nightlies and testers.
>>
>> lasconic
>>
>> 2017-05-24 22:45 GMT+02:00 Marc Sabatella <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> I wonder if maybe there couldn't be a more streamlined process for
>>> purely bug fix releases? Not every release necessarily requires a lengthy
>>> announcement or a newsletter, maybe not all require updating apps, not all
>>> have translation implications, etc.
>>>
>>> Because absolutely I agree we shouldn't divert more attention from 3.0
>>> development than necessary. I think that given the magnitude of the
>>> changes coming for 3.0, having 2.1 made sense even though it was a pretty
>>> big release. I would hope to not have another anything like that before
>>> 3.0, so if 2.1 took 20 days, maybe we see how we can make 2.1.x releases in
>>> under a week, with more people helping out so that it isn't a full time
>>> commitment for anyone.
>>>
>>> Ideally it would be easier to have more regular bug fix updates. It's
>>> actually quite encouraging that the half dozen or so issues I mentioned are
>>> essentially *all* that has been reported in the several weeks since the
>>> release. So if we did a 2.1.1 in June, I would doubt we'd need a 2.1.2
>>> this year. Depending on the status of 3.0, maybe eventually we hit the
>>> 2.0.3 bugs that didn't quite make the list for 2.1, but it's an easier call
>>> to make if we can find a way to do it without taking as much effort as we
>>> spend now - or at least, if we can better distribute the work.
>>>
>>> At the very least, what if someone else were to own the coordinating
>>> community builds for Linux, portable apps, etc?
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 2:23 PM byan61 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This sounds like QA issue.
>>>> I am relatively new to MuseScore development and releasing process.
>>>>
>>>> Normally software releases go through following stages:
>>>> Alpha (internal testing)
>>>> Beta (external/user testing)
>>>> Final release
>>>>
>>>> All obvious regressions should have been discovered in the Alpha and
>>>> Beta
>>>> releases, and fixed before the final release is made.
>>>> I do not see any Beta release announcements for MuseScore 2.1. Please
>>>> correct me if I am wrong.
>>>> We should have Beta release(s) about 3-4 weeks before making the final
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://dev-list.musescore.org/
>>>> Releases-and-packaging-tp7580247p7580250.html
>>>> Sent from the MuseScore Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ------------------
>>>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Mscore-developer mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mscore-developer
>>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ------------------
>>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Mscore-developer mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mscore-developer
>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot______
>> _________________________________________
>> Mscore-developer mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mscore-developer
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Mscore-developer mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mscore-developer
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Mscore-developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mscore-developer
