Subject: Re: [ecasound] we need bigger releases!
From: Kai Vehmanen (k@eca.cx)
Date: Wed Feb 07 2001 - 06:42:37 EET
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Jeremy Hall wrote:
> I think people should use the 1.9, 1.10, etc versions as stable releases
> and 1.9.1 etc as devel, just as you have suggested. You might leave the D
I've considered the "1.9.1 -> 1.9.2 -> 1.9.3 = stable 1.9" approach, but
it seems a bit illogical to me. IMHO it's better if 1.9 and 1.9.0 are
considered to be equivalent. At least now the "1.9dev1" style seems to be
the best.
> I also think people wishing to test a new feature should use CVS, that way
> if there are problems, the latest CVS tree is always available. If a
Yup, CVS just makes things so much easier that it's hard to live without
once you start use it. But there are few things which make separate
development releases useful:
1) it forces you to clean up various not-so-important things like
makefiles, rpm/debian/etc package specs, readmes, etc
2) ready-to-use binary packages do have their good sides;
if nothing else, compiling ecasound from scratch take quite
a lot of time... :(
3) devel-releases serve as milestones --> people know that the
project is still alive and kicking ;)
> You could have symbolic tags in the CVS to denote some stage
> (before_mixer) for example comes to mind. People wishing to bleed should
> do so on CVS so they remain current with the code.
This is on my todo-list: CVS-tags and lots of them! :)
-- . http://www.eca.cx ... [ audio software for linux ] /\ . . http://www.eca.cx/sculpscape [ my armchair-tunes mp3/ra/wav ]-- To unsubscribe send message 'unsubscribe' in the body of the message to <ecasound-list-request@wakkanet.fi>.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Feb 07 2001 - 06:47:10 EET