web: news about cancelled rc

web: news about cancelled rc

[dak, 2012-05-21 15:42:50]

http://codereview.appspot.com/6223054/diff/1/Documentation/web/news-front.itexi
File Documentation/web/news-front.itexi (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6223054/diff/1/Documentation/web/news-front.ite...
Documentation/web/news-front.itexi:21: @strong{Update (@emph{May 12, 2012)}:} A
Critical bug was found,
The date is not really of interest.  I'd just write
@string{Update:} Due to a few Critical bugs, another release candidate will be
required.

[Graham Percival, 2012-05-21 17:51:11]

I hate to be a mao, but I believe I suggested a new news item?  Think of each
news item as a tweet or something like that.  We have a new piece of news: the
release candidate has been cancelled.

In other news, Prague has really bumpy trams.  (proof by induction with a sample
size of 1)

[janek, 2012-05-21 18:22:45]

New version.

On 2012/05/21 17:51:11, Graham Percival wrote:
> I hate to be a mao, but I believe I suggested a new news item? 

I thought that it was a non-obligatory suggestion.

> Think of each news item as a tweet or something like that. 
> We have a new piece of news: the release candidate has been cancelled.

It would make sense if this was a fresh piece of news.  Here, we cannot even say
/when/ the release was cancelled.  In my opinion it doesn't make sense to write
a news with today's date for something that happened more than a week ago.
An update doesn't require specific date.  That's why i think it's better - it
just states that something changed.
However, i'll change it to a separate item if you insist.

cheers,
Janek

[dak, 2012-05-21 18:37:59]

On 2012/05/21 18:22:45, janek wrote:
> New version.
> 
> On 2012/05/21 17:51:11, Graham Percival wrote:
> > I hate to be a mao, but I believe I suggested a new news item? 
> 
> I thought that it was a non-obligatory suggestion.
> 
> > Think of each news item as a tweet or something like that. 
> > We have a new piece of news: the release candidate has been cancelled.
> 
> It would make sense if this was a fresh piece of news.  Here, we cannot even
say
> /when/ the release was cancelled.  In my opinion it doesn't make sense to
write
> a news with today's date for something that happened more than a week ago.
> An update doesn't require specific date.  That's why i think it's better - it
> just states that something changed.
> However, i'll change it to a separate item if you insist.

Unfortunately, Graham's and my suggestion don't play together well.  I think you
should now omit the @strong{Update:} and just make this

Due to a few Critical bugs, version 2.15.38 is no longer a candidate for the
stable release 2.16.

Five rounds of guesswork from several developers for a single sentence would not
seem like the most efficient use of manpower for proceeding on this item.

[Graham Percival, 2012-05-21 20:43:06]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 06:37:59PM +0000, dak@gnu.org wrote:
> Five rounds of guesswork from several developers for a single sentence
> would not seem like the most efficient use of manpower for proceeding on
> this item.

Agreed; just go ahead and push whatever you have right now.
Regardless of whether it matches David's or my suggestion.

But as a general note, I recommend to re-use existing news items
as much as possible (i.e. copy&paste to announce the latest
lilypond report, only changing numbers and links.  Copy&paste
release announcements, candidate rejections, etc.  If you just
copy what we currently do (or recently did), then there'll be less
thinking and discussion about whether the new plan is good or not.

Even more general tip about "cat herding" (i.e. open-source
developer management): if something isn't worth discussing, then
try to make sure that nobody has anything to discuss.  Many
lilypond policies are designed with that guideline.

- Graham

[janek, 2012-05-21 21:24:57]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Graham Percival
<graham@percival-music.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 06:37:59PM +0000, dak@gnu.org wrote:
>> Five rounds of guesswork from several developers for a single sentence
>> would not seem like the most efficient use of manpower for proceeding on
>> this item.
>
> Agreed; just go ahead and push whatever you have right now.
> Regardless of whether it matches David's or my suggestion.
>
> But as a general note, I recommend to re-use existing news items
> as much as possible (i.e. copy&paste to announce the latest
> lilypond report, only changing numbers and links.  Copy&paste
> release announcements, candidate rejections, etc.  If you just
> copy what we currently do (or recently did), then there'll be less
> thinking and discussion about whether the new plan is good or not.
>
> Even more general tip about "cat herding" (i.e. open-source
> developer management): if something isn't worth discussing, then
> try to make sure that nobody has anything to discuss.  Many
> lilypond policies are designed with that guideline.

good point.

pushed 4476f6dd7300bb84f6eac756ebcd8c3a1c96125c