flac dev - Jan 2013 - Tag flac as flac 1.2.1_git

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

Jaren Stangret wrote:
> 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.
I'm currently looking to name it 1.3.0rc1. 1.3.0 because its been so
long since the last offical release and because of the change of
maintainership.
> On a different note, are the test scripts dependent on POSIX environments?
> Or is there some allowance for bash/korn?
I haven't paid much attention to that but thing portability is
a good thing and will take patches as long they don't break
existing/working platforms.

Cheers,
Erik
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/

I seem to recall that changes in the second number indicated a minor change
in the *format* of the file itself (for example, 1.1.x to 1.2.x introduced
a new rice coding option used for 24-bit files). Are there any format
changes that would justify that ? Otherwise, 1.2.2 would seem more
appropriate, not to minimize the work that you are doing...

Cheers,
Pyt.
http://www.mjuware.com

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Erik de Castro Lopo - mle+la at mega-nerd.com
<flac-dev.pyt.682528eb7b.mle+la#mega-nerd.com at ob.0sg.net> wrote:
> I'm currently looking to name it 1.3.0rc1. 1.3.0 because its been so
> long since the last offical release and because of the change of
> maintainership.
>


--
Pierre-Yves Thoulon
+33 (0)6 33 39 75 76
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/attachments/20130112/3845cd0c/attachment.htm