Releasing 2.20

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Releasing 2.20

David Kastrup

Ok folks,

tomorrow I am leaving for physical therapy.  I expect 3 weeks without
extension since the problematic areas have boiled down considerably in
the last two weeks already: swallowing is an ongoing nuisance, balance
is pretty well but looking back when bicycling still is precarious in
particular when something _is_ creeping up.  And temperature and pain
insensitivity on the left side and the mouth is something that also
requires adaption.  I am dealing reasonably well with my right hand
though using it in "independent parts" like for finicky mechanical feats
and for playing button accordion still shows some disposition for
cramping up.

But all in all I'm down to somewhat particular complaints so it's my
guess that 3 weeks of fulltime institutionalization will be sufficient
for getting things on track sufficiently in order to revert to parttime
afterwards.

A number of people have wished me well, voiced their concerns and sent
personal support.  Most of them I haven't answered individually and
apologize for that: I have a lot on my mind right now and the mind is
not all that well-focused yet (and honestly, it wasn't all that
well-focused before the stroke either).  So putting out individual and
appropriate responses well a bit through the cracks.

I have to see how much of a taxation therapy will turn out to be.  I got
my computer with me and I have installed a WWAN card and got some data
plan that should at least be good for email and issue updates.
Reception is pretty bad out in the woods here (I don't really have a
dedicated antenna but have instead sacrificed a Wifi antenna in the
laptop) but my expectation is that the institution will likely have a
cell tower close enough for Email to get in and out reliably enough.

So I should be able to do some reasonably straightforward work.

So how is it going to end up?  Barring objections, I'll probably branch
off a stable release branch early next week.  I'll have to see what to
cherry-pick into this branch as fixes proceed, and possibly what to
revert when it is not clear that functionality provided by recent
patches/changes can be considered stable in use and interface.

I don't think that we should need much more than the 3-week maturing
period corresponding to the expected physical therapy duration.

The alternative of releasing 2.18.3 since 2.18.2 does not even compile
using gcc-7 anymore is something I want to avoid.

So I'd rather pitch for a timely release of 2.20.  There have been a few
critical bugs flagged, however.  I'll take a look at them eventually but
if someone else has a good idea...

--
David Kastrup

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Releasing 2.20

Hans Aikema-2
David,

Make sure that your main focus will be getting back into good shape.

If schedule and energy levels allow for starting of a 2.20 branch I think it would be good to update ghostscript to a version that has the PNG-transparency glitches fixed that surfaced in 2.19.51.
Ghostscript has made a release with the fix for the issue that was created by Masamichi Hosoda as a result of the discovery of the PNG-transparency bug in the 2.19.51 Lilypond build)

I guess not picking the ghostscript update from the 2.19 branch would be senseless, but keeping the current status of the 2.19 branch would not fit a stable release IMO

Hans Aikema, direct vanuit de iCloud

> Op 7 jun. 2017 om 22:34 heeft David Kastrup <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:
>
>
> Ok folks,
>
> tomorrow I am leaving for physical therapy.  I expect 3 weeks without
> extension since the problematic areas have boiled down considerably in
> the last two weeks already: swallowing is an ongoing nuisance, balance
> is pretty well but looking back when bicycling still is precarious in
> particular when something _is_ creeping up.  And temperature and pain
> insensitivity on the left side and the mouth is something that also
> requires adaption.  I am dealing reasonably well with my right hand
> though using it in "independent parts" like for finicky mechanical feats
> and for playing button accordion still shows some disposition for
> cramping up.
>
> But all in all I'm down to somewhat particular complaints so it's my
> guess that 3 weeks of fulltime institutionalization will be sufficient
> for getting things on track sufficiently in order to revert to parttime
> afterwards.
>
> A number of people have wished me well, voiced their concerns and sent
> personal support.  Most of them I haven't answered individually and
> apologize for that: I have a lot on my mind right now and the mind is
> not all that well-focused yet (and honestly, it wasn't all that
> well-focused before the stroke either).  So putting out individual and
> appropriate responses well a bit through the cracks.
>
> I have to see how much of a taxation therapy will turn out to be.  I got
> my computer with me and I have installed a WWAN card and got some data
> plan that should at least be good for email and issue updates.
> Reception is pretty bad out in the woods here (I don't really have a
> dedicated antenna but have instead sacrificed a Wifi antenna in the
> laptop) but my expectation is that the institution will likely have a
> cell tower close enough for Email to get in and out reliably enough.
>
> So I should be able to do some reasonably straightforward work.
>
> So how is it going to end up?  Barring objections, I'll probably branch
> off a stable release branch early next week.  I'll have to see what to
> cherry-pick into this branch as fixes proceed, and possibly what to
> revert when it is not clear that functionality provided by recent
> patches/changes can be considered stable in use and interface.
>
> I don't think that we should need much more than the 3-week maturing
> period corresponding to the expected physical therapy duration.
>
> The alternative of releasing 2.18.3 since 2.18.2 does not even compile
> using gcc-7 anymore is something I want to avoid.
>
> So I'd rather pitch for a timely release of 2.20.  There have been a few
> critical bugs flagged, however.  I'll take a look at them eventually but
> if someone else has a good idea...
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Releasing 2.20

Dave Plater
In reply to this post by David Kastrup


On 07/06/2017 22:34, David Kastrup wrote:
> The alternative of releasing 2.18.3 since 2.18.2 does not even compile
> using gcc-7 anymore is something I want to avoid.
2.18.2 compiled with gcc7 but the doc build failed. The patch from
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4814
fixed that problem. I assume that if it builds the documentation then
lilypond is good.
Best regards
Dave Plater

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Releasing 2.20

David Kastrup
In reply to this post by Hans Aikema-2
Hans Aikema <[hidden email]> writes:

> David,
>
> Make sure that your main focus will be getting back into good shape.
>
> If schedule and energy levels allow for starting of a 2.20 branch I
> think it would be good to update ghostscript to a version that has the
> PNG-transparency glitches fixed that surfaced in 2.19.51.
> Ghostscript has made a release with the fix for the issue that was
> created by Masamichi Hosoda as a result of the discovery of the
> PNG-transparency bug in the 2.19.51 Lilypond build)

That's more a matter of GUB than of LilyPond.  GhostScript is more of a
runtime dependency so it's not really something we would refuse a build
for.

--
David Kastrup

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Releasing 2.20

Trevor Daniels
In reply to this post by David Kastrup

David Kastrup wrote Wednesday, June 07, 2017 9:34 PM

> tomorrow I am leaving for physical therapy.

Hope it all goes well for you.

> So I should be able to do some reasonably straightforward work.

Good, but that should not be your priority ATM.
 
> So how is it going to end up?  Barring objections, I'll probably branch
> off a stable release branch early next week.  I'll have to see what to
> cherry-pick into this branch as fixes proceed, and possibly what to
> revert when it is not clear that functionality provided by recent
> patches/changes can be considered stable in use and interface.

Again, good, but ...
 
> I don't think that we should need much more than the 3-week maturing
> period corresponding to the expected physical therapy duration.

Agreed, there seem to be very few reasons to delay.  Presumably it will
be a .0 release anyway, meaning "use cautiously and look out for bugs."
 
> The alternative of releasing 2.18.3 since 2.18.2 does not even compile
> using gcc-7 anymore is something I want to avoid.

Definitely.  There are so many improvements since 2.18 that a major
release is the sensible choice.

> So I'd rather pitch for a timely release of 2.20.  There have been a few
> critical bugs flagged, however.  I'll take a look at them eventually but
> if someone else has a good idea...

We might need to revisit these to see if they really are critical.

Trevor


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Releasing 2.20

Paul Morris
In reply to this post by David Kastrup
On 06/07/2017 04:34 PM, David Kastrup wrote:

> tomorrow I am leaving for physical therapy.

Hope it goes well David!

> So how is it going to end up?  Barring objections, I'll probably branch
> off a stable release branch early next week.  I'll have to see what to
> cherry-pick into this branch as fixes proceed, and possibly what to
> revert when it is not clear that functionality provided by recent
> patches/changes can be considered stable in use and interface.
>
> I don't think that we should need much more than the 3-week maturing
> period corresponding to the expected physical therapy duration.
>
> The alternative of releasing 2.18.3 since 2.18.2 does not even compile
> using gcc-7 anymore is something I want to avoid.
>
> So I'd rather pitch for a timely release of 2.20.  There have been a few
> critical bugs flagged, however.  I'll take a look at them eventually but
> if someone else has a good idea...

Sounds good to me.  I have a few things I'd like to get into the stable
release, one way or another, if possible.

- Some CSS edits for the docs that I started but havent
finished/submitted for review yet.  I'll try to get that done in the
next few days if I can.

- Might be worth looking again at issue 3884, either to just go with the
initial patch for now, or try for one of the other approaches in that
discussion?
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/3884/

- This doesn't really matter, but it might be worth renaming the
"staffLineLayoutFunction" context property (which is not really about
staff lines...) to something better, maybe
"pitchToStaffPositionFunction" or pitchToStaffPositionProcedure"? (It
takes a pitch and returns an integer indicating a vertical staff
position.  It's used in note-heads-engraver.cc)

Let me know any thoughts on these things,
-Paul


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Releasing 2.20

David Kastrup
Paul <[hidden email]> writes:

> On 06/07/2017 04:34 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> tomorrow I am leaving for physical therapy.
>
> Hope it goes well David!
>
>> So how is it going to end up?  Barring objections, I'll probably branch
>> off a stable release branch early next week.  I'll have to see what to
>> cherry-pick into this branch as fixes proceed, and possibly what to
>> revert when it is not clear that functionality provided by recent
>> patches/changes can be considered stable in use and interface.
>>
>> I don't think that we should need much more than the 3-week maturing
>> period corresponding to the expected physical therapy duration.
>>
>> The alternative of releasing 2.18.3 since 2.18.2 does not even compile
>> using gcc-7 anymore is something I want to avoid.
>>
>> So I'd rather pitch for a timely release of 2.20.  There have been a few
>> critical bugs flagged, however.  I'll take a look at them eventually but
>> if someone else has a good idea...
>
> Sounds good to me.  I have a few things I'd like to get into the
> stable release, one way or another, if possible.
>
> - Some CSS edits for the docs that I started but havent
> finished/submitted for review yet.  I'll try to get that done in the
> next few days if I can.

Shouldn't matter a lot regarding stable/unstable but we should get the
bikeshedding finished by release time.

> - Might be worth looking again at issue 3884, either to just go with
> the initial patch for now, or try for one of the other approaches in
> that discussion?
> https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/3884/

Ugh, looks like another ball I dropped.  I'll take to pencil and paper
some time tomorrow.

> - This doesn't really matter, but it might be worth renaming the
> "staffLineLayoutFunction" context property (which is not really about
> staff lines...) to something better, maybe
> "pitchToStaffPositionFunction" or pitchToStaffPositionProcedure"? (It
> takes a pitch and returns an integer indicating a vertical staff
> position.  It's used in note-heads-engraver.cc)

Well, discussion needs to have converged really well for changes to
preexisting conventions to get into stable: we don't really want to do
gratuitous changes that might get changed again or do not provide a
definite payback for the hassle.

--
David Kastrup

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Releasing 2.20

Masamichi HOSODA-2
In reply to this post by David Kastrup
> Hans Aikema <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> David,
>>
>> Make sure that your main focus will be getting back into good shape.
>>
>> If schedule and energy levels allow for starting of a 2.20 branch I
>> think it would be good to update ghostscript to a version that has the
>> PNG-transparency glitches fixed that surfaced in 2.19.51.
>> Ghostscript has made a release with the fix for the issue that was
>> created by Masamichi Hosoda as a result of the discovery of the
>> PNG-transparency bug in the 2.19.51 Lilypond build)
>
> That's more a matter of GUB than of LilyPond.  GhostScript is more of a
> runtime dependency so it's not really something we would refuse a build
> for.

I've sent a pull request that updates GUB's Ghostscript to 9.21.
https://github.com/gperciva/gub/pull/39

However, on FreeBSD 32 bit, both Ghostscript 9.20 and 9.21 crash.
So only for FreeBSD 32 bit, Ghostscript 9.15 is used.

Linux 64 bit, Linux 32 bit, Linux PPC, FreeBSD 64 bit,
and Windows are no problem.

In my humble opinion, after or before releasing 2.20,
it is better to discontinue some platforms' binary release.

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Releasing 2.20

David Kastrup
Masamichi Hosoda <[hidden email]> writes:

>> Hans Aikema <[hidden email]> writes:
>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> Make sure that your main focus will be getting back into good shape.
>>>
>>> If schedule and energy levels allow for starting of a 2.20 branch I
>>> think it would be good to update ghostscript to a version that has the
>>> PNG-transparency glitches fixed that surfaced in 2.19.51.
>>> Ghostscript has made a release with the fix for the issue that was
>>> created by Masamichi Hosoda as a result of the discovery of the
>>> PNG-transparency bug in the 2.19.51 Lilypond build)
>>
>> That's more a matter of GUB than of LilyPond.  GhostScript is more of a
>> runtime dependency so it's not really something we would refuse a build
>> for.
>
> I've sent a pull request that updates GUB's Ghostscript to 9.21.
> https://github.com/gperciva/gub/pull/39
>
> However, on FreeBSD 32 bit, both Ghostscript 9.20 and 9.21 crash.
> So only for FreeBSD 32 bit, Ghostscript 9.15 is used.
>
> Linux 64 bit, Linux 32 bit, Linux PPC, FreeBSD 64 bit,
> and Windows are no problem.
>
> In my humble opinion, after or before releasing 2.20,
> it is better to discontinue some platforms' binary release.

If we call it "stable", it better be stable.  So I think it would make
sense to make the decision for the release.

--
David Kastrup

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Releasing 2.20

Paul Morris
In reply to this post by David Kastrup
On 06/08/2017 03:31 PM, David Kastrup wrote:

>> Sounds good to me.  I have a few things I'd like to get into the
>> stable release, one way or another, if possible.
>>
>> - Some CSS edits for the docs that I started but havent
>> finished/submitted for review yet.  I'll try to get that done in the
>> next few days if I can.
> Shouldn't matter a lot regarding stable/unstable but we should get the
> bikeshedding finished by release time.

Sounds good.

>> - Might be worth looking again at issue 3884, either to just go with
>> the initial patch for now, or try for one of the other approaches in
>> that discussion?
>> https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/3884/
> Ugh, looks like another ball I dropped.  I'll take to pencil and paper
> some time tomorrow.

I see you already have a proposal/fix.  That was fast!  I'll try to take
a look and reply in the other thread.

>> - This doesn't really matter, but it might be worth renaming the
>> "staffLineLayoutFunction" context property (which is not really about
>> staff lines...) to something better, maybe
>> "pitchToStaffPositionFunction" or pitchToStaffPositionProcedure"? (It
>> takes a pitch and returns an integer indicating a vertical staff
>> position.  It's used in note-heads-engraver.cc)
> Well, discussion needs to have converged really well for changes to
> preexisting conventions to get into stable: we don't really want to do
> gratuitous changes that might get changed again or do not provide a
> definite payback for the hassle.

OK, sounds like a discussion to have for 2.21 / 2.22 then.

A few other possibilities, for later:

   pitchToStaffLayoutFunction

   pitchToStaffLayoutProcedure

   staffPitchLayoutFunction

   staffPitchLayoutProcedure

Cheers,
-Paul


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel