Hi,
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:33 PM, David Baelde <[email protected]>wrote:
> When we officially release the 1.0 version, this will mean that we
> freeze some features. After that, we can make bugfixes, but we should
> not break backward compatibility. So I wouldn't rush on this.
>
I agree with this, but for now I don't really see any backward incompatible
changes that we would make (excepting video). As far as I see the changes
listed on the bugtracker and mentionned below, it's only bugfix and
improvements which would not change Liquidsoap's API. So this argument does
not really hold here (at least for me).
> Beyond the compatibility questions, I'd really like the 1.0 to be
> stable and clean: we have many people who successfully use the SVN
> version but we should also think about people who need high stability.
> This point can be discussed but I think releases should be more than
> SVN snapshots "at okay times".
>
I'm really not sure with this: we have added tons of very neat features that
are useful to many people and yet only advanced geeks who can compile svn
have access to them. As I see things, if we follow your practice, we would
not release before months (and probably more than a year), which is a very
long time. I am more in favor of release early and often.
Of course I think that the release should be stable, but some of the
features require a lot of time to be implemented, so we could postpone them
easily for 1.1.
Video is still not quite stable, and there's a good chance that only a
> little code (restoring and testing camlimages instead of sdlloader)
> could help, but that's not a top priority.
>
Nobody is really using video so it's not so much tested and I really don't
have hope to get something clean anytime soon...
Also I'd like VERY MUCH that we take the opportunity of releases to
> cleanup some code. In particular the src/io code is a mess -- there
> have been a few tickets about that for a LONG time. Those sources and
> operators should be made more uniform, for devs but also users (most
> outputs don't have start/stop commands, or fallible mode). Several I/O
> are not tested: did you get feedback from anybody about the gstreamer
> webcam support? By the way, this code is one of the sources that
> doesn't respect basic liquidsoap conventions.
>
I agree that this cleanup would be good but it can easily be postponed (and
it actually would be better to do so since this refactoring might introduce
bugs...).
We should try to talk IRL of this (and other things) sometimes soon...
++
Sam
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The modern datacenter depends on network connectivity to access resources
and provide services. The best practices for maximizing a physical server's
connectivity to a physical network are well understood - see how these
rules translate into the virtual world?
http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnlfb
_______________________________________________
Savonet-devl mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/savonet-devl
