Releasing groff 1.22.5?

2020-10-10 Thread G. Branden Robinson
We have a formal expression of interest in a new release. https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?59216 Bertrand, do you think you will be available to serve as release engineer, or do we need to solicit interest in the role? If anyone feels we haven't yet satisfied some technical goal that we should hav

[DRAFT] introduction to *roff concepts

2020-10-10 Thread G. Branden Robinson
I predictably forgot to attach my patch when I mentioned my pending rewrite of the first section of the "gtroff Reference" chapter of our Texinfo manual, and since it was a digression anyway I thought I'd give it a new thread. At 2020-10-10T20:56:47+1100, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > H. Integrate

Re: Releasing groff 1.22.5?

2020-10-10 Thread Colin Watson
On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 08:56:49PM +1100, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > If anyone feels we haven't yet satisfied some technical goal that we > should have accomplished before branding something "1.22.5", please > speak up now. I have some things I'd like to accomplish before a > release[1], but bas

Re: Releasing groff 1.22.5?

2020-10-10 Thread G. Branden Robinson
At 2020-10-10T14:59:15+0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 08:56:49PM +1100, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > If anyone feels we haven't yet satisfied some technical goal that we > > should have accomplished before branding something "1.22.5", please > > speak up now. I have some thi

Re: Releasing groff 1.22.5?

2020-10-10 Thread Peter Schaffter
On Sat, Oct 10, 2020, Colin Watson wrote: > May I suggest bumping to 1.23? I know groff doesn't practise strict > semver, but this would be justified in that scheme (there are several > new features). I concur. Branden's Herculean labour of cleaning out the documentation stable alone merits a sh

Re: Releasing groff 1.22.5?

2020-10-10 Thread Werner LEMBERG
> My main argument against that is a selfish one. Somebody would have > to go through all the Savannah tickets that are marked as fixed in > 1.22.5 and change them. Simply change the name of the label, and you are done. Internally, an ID gets used that is independent of the label name. W

Re: Releasing groff 1.22.5?

2020-10-10 Thread G. Branden Robinson
At 2020-10-10T17:34:02+0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > My main argument against that is a selfish one. Somebody would have > > to go through all the Savannah tickets that are marked as fixed in > > 1.22.5 and change them. > > Simply change the name of the label, and you are done. Internally, an

Re: Releasing groff 1.22.5?

2020-10-10 Thread Bertrand Garrigues via
Hi Branden, On Sat, Oct 10 2020 at 08:56:49 PM, "G. Branden Robinson" wrote: > We have a formal expression of interest in a new release. > > https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?59216 > > Bertrand, do you think you will be available to serve as release > engineer, or do we need to solicit interest in

Re: Releasing groff 1.22.5?

2020-10-10 Thread Bertrand Garrigues via
Hi Werner, On Sat, Oct 10 2020 at 05:34:02 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote: >> My main argument against that is a selfish one. Somebody would have >> to go through all the Savannah tickets that are marked as fixed in >> 1.22.5 and change them. > > Simply change the name of the label, and you are done.

Re: Releasing groff 1.22.5?

2020-10-10 Thread Dave Kemper
I agree that there's enough active development that groff should have a more frequent release cycle than it has of late (though I understand the lack of manpower to spearhead this). I think any open bugs that include a patch should have that patch applied or rejected (either as WONTFIX or with rea

Re: Releasing groff 1.22.5?

2020-10-10 Thread G. Branden Robinson
At 2020-10-10T18:21:31-0500, Dave Kemper wrote: > I agree that there's enough active development that groff should have > a more frequent release cycle than it has of late (though I understand > the lack of manpower to spearhead this). There is a theory that a more frequent release cycle leads to

Re: Releasing groff 1.22.5?

2020-10-10 Thread Werner LEMBERG
> Just a question on the version though: We are talking about 1.23 and > not 1.23.0, and I see that we also had a 1.22 version (not a > 1.22.0), is there a particular reason to omit the patch number if it > is equal to 0? It looked nicer then for me, and I think I saw that for other GNU packages,

Re: Releasing groff 1.22.5?

2020-10-10 Thread G. Branden Robinson
Hi, Bertrand! At 2020-10-11T00:04:16+0200, Bertrand Garrigues wrote: > I don't have much time to make large changes in the code base (my > Knuth-Plass work is unfortunately in standby now), but for a release it > should not be a problem, I'll do it. Great news! Thank you! I'm curious to hear yo

Re: Releasing groff 1.22.5?

2020-10-10 Thread G. Branden Robinson
At 2020-10-10T10:29:23-0400, Peter Schaffter wrote: > On Sat, Oct 10, 2020, Colin Watson wrote: > > May I suggest bumping to 1.23? I know groff doesn't practise strict > > semver, but this would be justified in that scheme (there are several > > new features). > > I concur. Branden's Herculean l