On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 19:20:34 (CEST), Måns Rullgård wrote:
[...] >> >> What about the release notes in the 'RELEASE' file, would you like to >> see it in 'master'? I think so, but keep in mind that it will be >> outdated rather quickly in a few months in non-release branches. > > I don't see any harm in recording what went into the latest release, > even if more work has been done since. > > I'd be slightly biased towards calling the release version file RELEASE > and the notes RELEASE_NOTES or similar, unless there's strong precedent > from other projects for a different naming scheme. > > Actually, the release notes should probably go in the doc/ directory. Makes sense, so let's do that then. >>> One side-effect of this will be that builds from a non-git tree will >>> identify as the latest release rather than UNKNOWN. I don't think >>> this is important. >> >> Well, it might for example in bugreports. There, we require people to >> state the version number used to build the binary. In case people build >> from a plain tarball instead of a git checkout, it makes it harder to >> distinguish if the tarball was rolled against some snapshot in master or >> a release tarball was taken. Think of platforms like win32, where there >> is no decent (native) git client available or the user prefers plain >> tarballs (which can be created on the fly in gitweb) over 'git clone'. >> I don't expect this situation to occur too often, but it still makes >> sense to keep in mind when reading bugreports. > > Is there some way to have gitweb (git archive?) inject a version file in > generated tarballs? Not easily, we'd probably would have to hack it up then. Doesn't seem worth the efford to me. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
