If there was no change to the code, how come there are 3 fixes in the 
history?

"preset medium added to the dll interface
fix for abr/cbr presets
fix -q0 switch"

A decision on whether to report the true version sounds like a no-
brainer to me. Of course it should! And the alpha/betas status too.


On 30 Jun 2003 at 15:11, Alexander Leidinger wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:01:24 -0400
> "TJ Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > I found a minor annoyance. When building 3.93.1, the lame executable and the
> > ACM both claim to be 3.93. This was very confusing as I was dling many
> > different compiled binaries yet they all claimed to be version 3.93 and not
> > 3.93.1, which is what they were.
> 
> If I remember correctly 3.93.1 had no change in the code, it was just
> because of a bug in "configure" or because of a missing file in the
> archive... I can't remember.
> 
> Let's not care about the specific reason, the intend of "3.93.1" was to
> have an unique archive filename which differs from 3.93. There was no
> change in the algorithms used to produce a MP3, so if you have a 3.93
> binary you're fine, regardless if it comes from a 3.93 archive or from a
> 3.93.1 archive.
> 
> If there had been a major change of the source (e.g. any change which
> results in a different binary), we would have used 3.94 instead, as this
> version number is used in the binary, and only with this number you can
> differentiate between the binaries.
> 
> As we don't plan to use such macro-version changes in the future to
> provide the possibility to generate binaries with such a version (a
> change in the binary results in a change of the x.y version number,
> there's no need for a macro-version), we don't need this change (sorry
> to tell you this, but the change isn't large, so I don't think you lost
> much time for it).
> 
> Regardless: Thank you for your effort, I hope you will continue to care
> about LAME.
> 
> Bye,
> Alexander.
> 
> -- 
>               The best things in life are free, but the
>                 expensive ones are still worth a look.
> 
> http://www.Leidinger.net                       Alexander @ Leidinger.net
>   GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91  3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
> _______________________________________________
> mp3encoder mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder


_______________________________________________
mp3encoder mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder

Reply via email to