New release?

[vanillajonathan]

It has been quite a while since the last release.

I would like to request for there to be a new release.

In the future, perhaps releases could become a bit more frequent?

[cutelisp]

I would like to request for there to be a new release.

There is a milestone for 2.0.15.
Note:#2956 (comment) after 2.0.15 will maintainers have rights on micro org?

In the future, perhaps releases could become a bit more frequent?

This has been a frequent topic AFAICS. I am not aware of releasing process, but I wonder why are them so infrequently although there are so much commits? Is there a downside?

[dmaluka]

There is no releasing process, it's all chaotic.

Once @JoeKar is back from vacation, we might discuss making a new release soon.

There is a milestone for 2.0.15 with 2 open issues, yes. We can postpone (yet another time) fixing #2839. But #3700 we should fix before the release, since it's an actual regression introduced since 2.0.14.

[JoeKar]

We can postpone (yet another time) fixing #2839.

Yes, I think we can do this.

But #3700 we should fix before the release, since it's an actual regression introduced since 2.0.14.

👍

[usfbih8u]

I would like to ask @JoeKar and @dmaluka for an announcement and a "freeze period" of 1 or 2 weeks before the release (when the time comes) so users can test the nightly version to catch any possible regressions.

In the current release (2.0.14), I caught a regression that was a minor inconvenience for me, but given the slow release rate, any major regression would mean getting stuck in the current version for another year.

And thanks for maintaining the repo!

[JoeKar]

just like we did with v2.0.14

Last time it was already done by you. 😄

I'll probably do that tomorrow.

I appreciate that. Thank you already in advance!

[dmaluka]

I'm in the middle of refining it (about 1/3 through it) but it will require quite some work. The number of merged PRs is large, and their titles are often misleading...

[dmaluka]

Done.

[JoeKar]

Great job, thank you!

[JoeKar]

@utkarsh2102:
I think 2.0.15-1/02-use-original-fork.patch is more than counterproductive. It breaks new features (e.g. #3595 & #3895) and the whole pluginchannels-list.
From my point of view there is no need to apply this patch any longer, since we did these forks on purpose (after rebasing json5 to upstream; tcell is a more complex story).
Long story short:
Please drop this patch and create a fixed 2.0.15-2.
Thank you in advance!