I agree on everything you said. I did not intend or expect to have
pre-release flac bundled with software, but can understand the dismay at my
earlier request.
If people think there should be a snapshot version for testing, I'm all for
it, especially now that the build system has undergone some changes. I
found that for some source distros, the removal of autogen.sh's prior
features and the removal of config.rpath caused a little headache (easily
fixed).
Whether we name it 1.2.2pre or 1.2.2snapshot or something entirely
different, is just fine. I guess I was making the point that if a new
release is in the works, some sort of pre-release to test would be nice.
On a different note, are the test scripts dependent on POSIX environments?
Or is there some allowance for bash/korn?
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Max Horn <max at quendi.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07.01.2013, at 01:46, Jaren Stangret wrote:
>
> > I know Erik is busy with maintenance and wants to get a release out
> soon. In the meantime, is it appropriate to tag HEAD as 1.2.1_git and
> include this in the CLI tools (flac, metaflac, etc)?
> >
> > This would make it easier to allow programs in development to test
> against git flac and older flac versions. For example, sample rates above
> 48kHz (for ReplayGain) is available in git flac but not 1.2.1.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> This sounds like a very bad thing to do, at least in the specific way you
> described. Because
>
> (a) this tag name is very bland and potentially misleading. At the very
> least, it should be called something like 1.2.2pre, 1.2.2snapshot or
> something like that;
>
> (b) bundling a pre-release version of some software in the past has
> sometimes lead to quite some maintenance nightmares for various projects,
> so I'd be vary. At the very least, make sure to label it very
explicitly as
> a pre-release snapshot that may contain regressions that may not be in the
> final release. In particular, you probably do not want to encourage distros
> to package and release it to a general audience, something I've seen
happen
> in other projects in the past, to the dismay of a lot of people.
>
> That said, providing alpha / beta / rc (release candidate) versions is of
> course a well-established tradition; and given how many years flac has gone
> without any release, it might be useful to provide a snapshot (whether one
> calls it prerelease, alpha, beta, rc or what else does not matter so much)
> and ask people to test it...
>
> Just, please, don't call it 1.2.1_git.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Max
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/attachments/20130107/32206c1e/attachment.htm