On Tuesday 04 October 2005 09:13, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 07:45:03PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > On Monday 03 October 2005 18:26, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > What I would suggest is a versioning scheme that will make it
> > > clear what a release is supposed to be. Perhaps 0.even ist stable
> > > and 0.odd is not? So 0.3.9 should perhaps become 0.4.0 with 0.4.1
> > > etc small bugfixes, and 0.5.0 the new branch with new features?
> >
> > I never liked the odd/even schemes. My idea is to have two active
> > series: one stable (0.3 branch), one for development (0.4
> > trunk). When 0.4 is stable that becomes a stable branch, 0.3 is
> > discontinued and 0.5 is opened for development. As long as the
> > website states that clearly I see no problems.
>
> It would be nic to have some deterministic mapping that will make it
> easy to check whether say 0.4.18 as found in Mandriva 2006 was a cut
> from the stable or development branch. I wouldn't know w/o browsing
> history, whether the change from development to stable status was on
> 0.4.17 or 0.4.18 etc.
Good point.
> Even/odd isn't the only scheme that can offer that, there are others
> like having stable going 1.0.0, 1.0.1, ... and developement towards
> "2" going 1.90.0, 1.90.1, .... Or reserve the subminor != 0 for
> development releases, and have stable releases always look like 0.4,
> 0.5, ... similar to what Intel does. There are endless versioning
> schemes to distinguish stable from development releases.
>
> But you're the piano man, so you play the music :)
>
> > Also, this stable/development distinction is only temporarily. The goal
> > is after all inclusion in the kernel, at which point there is no
> > development series anymore.
>
> That would assume we reach the state of perfection :)
That's the zen version :-)
> I believe that the kernel will accept some proven version of ivtv, but
> not allow active developement of new features to happen there. You can
> see this in almost any project that made it into the kernel
> independent of its size, or origin: The development continues in the
> project's domain and when the developers feel like they have reached a
> stable codebase again they submit the changes (or part of it) upstream
> to the kernel.
>
> So there will always be some development of ivtv going on, and if it's
> not just new tuners, it will not go directly into the kernel.
True again.
Even though I'm not that keen on it, the odd/even convention might be best
(0.2 stable, 0.3 unstable, 0.4 stable, etc. It does fit the current
situation).
I'll have to think about it.
Hans
_______________________________________________
ivtv-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://ivtvdriver.org/mailman/listinfo/ivtv-devel
