Re: [flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > Unfortunately I've lost/forgotten my Xiph SVN password. While I get > that sorted out for the real release, the pre-releases are here: > > http://mega-nerd.com/tmp/flac-1.3.2pre1-win.zip > http://mega-nerd.com/tmp/flac-1.3.2pre1.tar.xz Forgot to mention that

Re: [flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > > I'd say let's have a release candidate. More often than not, some > > issues turn up due to the exposure to a larger user base and, hence, > > test cases. > > Ok, coming up. Unfortunately I've lost/forgotten my Xiph SVN password. While I get that sorted out for

Re: [flac-dev] Some additions for the 1.3.2 changelog?

MauritsVB wrote: > Good point. How about “libFLAC assumes that all OSes that are usable today > support SSE.” ? > > Nitpicks: > 1) There is a full stop missing after 'Fixed a seeking bug when decoding > certain files' > 2) We could credit > "Fixed a seeking bug when decoding certain files”

Re: [flac-dev] Some additions for the 1.3.2 changelog?

> On 6 Dec 2016, at 09:07, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > > Wow, thanks for this. Really helpful to have someone else do something > I was dreading :). You’re more than welcome. Thanks for all your work pushing this through. > On 6 Dec 2016, at 09:20, Ozkan Sezer

Re: [flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

Thomas Zander wrote: > I'd say let's have a release candidate. More often than not, some > issues turn up due to the exposure to a larger user base and, hence, > test cases. Ok, coming up. Erik -- -- Erik de Castro Lopo

Re: [flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

On 6 December 2016 at 10:12, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > > Subject line says it all. Opinions? I'd say let's have a release candidate. More often than not, some issues turn up due to the exposure to a larger user base and, hence, test cases. Best regards Riggs

[flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

Subject line says it all. Opinions? Erik -- -- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ ___ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org

Re: [flac-dev] Some additions for the 1.3.2 changelog?

MauritsVB wrote: > I noticed you’ve started compiling the changelog for 1.3.2. I had sort of hoped I'd finished :). Seems I was wrong! > I have kept track of some of the bigger changes since 1.3.1 although > admittedly haven’t been on top of it this year. Perhaps some of these older > ones are

Re: [flac-dev] Some additions for the 1.3.2 changelog?

Evan Ramos wrote: > > Put an upper bound on the number of seek points > > https://git.xiph.org/?p=flac.git;a=commitdiff;h=033af7bf1cd035772a199d07342038619c019993 > > It looks like this commit has a typo: "num = 32786;" should be "num = 32768;". Thanks. Fixed. Erik --

Re: [flac-dev] Q: test for CPUID instruction presence

lvqcl.mail wrote: > Makes sense. > > But still... IMHO it makes sense to change "if !FLAC__HAS_X86INTRIN" > to "if defined FLAC__HAS_NASM". It covers more cases, and it's logical: > FLAC__cpu_have_cpuid_asm_ia32() can be called if (and only if) NASM is > available. > (the patch is attached