Re: Releasing groff 1.22.5?

[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 things I'd like to accomplish before a
> > release[1], but based on my experience with groff 1.22.4, I don't
> > think they'd interfere a beta or release-candidate cycle.
> 
> I generally think "release early, release often" is a good plan.

I do, too--_if_ you can recruit a release engineer or team with the
cycles for it.  :)

> 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).  More generally, I feel that there's no particular
> reason to be nervous of bumping the minor number, especially given how
> long it's been since 1.22.

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.  I suspect it would fall to me to do that.

Or is there a way to automate that?

If not, we could take the decision to call the _next_ release (after
1.22.5) 1.23 so the Savannah tickets have don't have to be corrected
later.

Whichever way we go, I am eager to see man-db take advantage of some of
the macro package simplifications I've made.  :)

Regards,
Branden

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature