Re: Releasing groff 1.22.5?

[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 early
detection of regressions that are difficult to resolve (perhaps because
their implementors wandered off in the meantime), but I think it's
unproven.  ;-)

> I think any open bugs that include a patch should have that patch
> applied or rejected (either as WONTFIX or with reasons given why the
> patch needs improvement).

Yes.

> Several are hanging there in limbo, not applied but with no feedback
> on whether they have deficiencies or simply haven't been looked at
> yet.  (In particular, #57638 documents a regression introduced in
> v1.22.4 and includes a patch to unregress it.)  It seems that bug
> reports with patches ought to be the lowest-hanging fruit on the
> savannah tree.

Can you prepare a list of these?  Are they the ones already tagged
with "[PATCH]" in the summary, or a subset thereof?

When browsing the bug list I tend to get distracted by problems that
look easy to resolve, then turn out to be more challenging, and
predicated on some aspect of groff I don't understand.  I fall down
the well of research, and then end up writing a documentation patch,
whereupon I notice an _adjacent_ inaccuracy, and it's really all just a
random walk from there.

I'll have a look at #57638 today (UTC+1100).

Regards,
Branden

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature