Yo, Sorry I did not follow recent devs very closely recently. What currently prevents us from releasing the 1.0?
++ Sam. On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:16 AM, David Baelde <[email protected]>wrote: > Yo devs, > > Back from holidays, I was happy to see the steady traffic on > savonet-users. One of the things that comes out is that we need to get > back to work towards liquidsoap 1.0. > > First, Romain expressed the need for a new bugfix release. This would > be a fix of 0.9.2, which was itself a snapshot of 1.0: it wasn't meant > to be stable, polished and documented, and was really not backward > compatible. It seems silly to fix a snapshot. The silliness actually > started before, as many people started using 0.9.2 without noticing > its snapshot status. Also, 0.9.2 was sent to debian as other > releases... > > I don't have a very clear opinion on how to fix this mess, but I've > thought of the reasons for our problems, and come up with a proposal > for future version numbers. Tell me what you think about it. > > << > > Version numbers MAJOR.MINOR.FIX are made of three integer numbers: > - Versions with the same MAJOR number should be backward compatible. > We may increase the MAJOR number without breaking compatibility, > e.g. in case of a major implementation change. > - Increases of the FIX number are only used for bugfixes, > they can introduce (backward compatible) differences if meaningful > for the fix, e.g. introducing a setting. > > Using the FIX number for snapshots doesn't leave room for bugfixes. > Using MINOR=9 (or 99) as we did for signalling a soon-to-be-coming > version 1.0.0 turned out to be not so soon and didn't leave room > for normally numbered releases. > > SNAPSHOT versions should be named alpha releases, e.g. 1.0.0 alpha. > We shall similarly use beta, beta1, beta2, etc. > Note that it makes it difficult to tell what versions come before > or after an alpha/beta, but this is probably a good thing: the beta > (development) versions are unrelated to normal (stable) versions. > Typically, alpha and beta versions will have their own SCM branch. > > The special keywords alpha and beta invalidate compatibility rules: > obviously, 0.9.x and 1.0.0 beta may be incompatible, but 1.0.0 beta1 > and beta2 may also be incompatible. > > >> > > I propose that we start using this scheme with 1.0 beta1. That version > should come soon: we want to release the bugfixes, and get more people > to test the current version of liquidsoap. I've gone through the open > tickets, and there doesn't seem to be anything really critical. > Documentation might be the most pressing issue. Lots of things are > still dirty or unstable, but it's acceptable for a beta and we need to > move on. In particular, midi and video are still quite immature. The > clock system is not quite finished: I'm still unhappy with the naming, > and many I/O operators still have a buffered mode that is a bit > redundant. > > The beta version could play the role of the bugfix for 0.9.2: > otherwise, what would be different between the two? If a separate > bugfix is needed, I guess it should be 0.9.3: it doesn't make sense > but the numbering is already broken. > > Cheers, > -- > David > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net email is sponsored by > > Make an app they can't live without > Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge > http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Savonet-devl mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/savonet-devl >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev
_______________________________________________ Savonet-devl mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/savonet-devl
