Re: Releasing groff 1.23.0?

[Dave Kemper]

Branden,

Your checklist looks great.  I would add:

P.  The question posed in
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?58930#comment10 and addressed in
follow-up comment #11 should have a definitive answer (even if that
answer is "leave things as they are for 1.23").  I think I still favor
reverting and then, after 1.23, taking time to figure out how to
address this in a device-independent manner.  But leaving this commit
in place shouldn't be a showstopper.  I'd just like it to be a
considered decision rather than something that slipped through.

Q.  You've been changing "@code{gtroff}" to "GNU @code{troff}" as you
work on sections of the Texinfo manual.  But this leaves the overall
document inconsistent in its usage, with each form currently used
about half the time.  It might be better for the release to run a
global search and replace to make the manual use one form or the other
throughout.  But I can also understand your reluctance to do this if
you're using these as signposts of which parts you've edited already.

R.  http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?57594 is currently marked as
Blocker.  I agree it would be great to have this 10+-year-old data
brought up to date, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of a
blocker for this release, especially given that it seems not as
straightforward as I'd hoped when I opened the bug.

S.  It would be nice if one of the patches in
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?59920 were applied so that the released
versions of meintro.me and meintro_fr.me are in sync.  Not a blocker.