Subject: Re: [ecasound] we need bigger releases!
From: Arto Hamara (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Feb 07 2001 - 11:29:37 EET
Kai Vehmanen <email@example.com> writes:
> I don't like the kernel-style versioning for two reasons: 1) With
> Linux kernel, both devel and stable branches are both actively
> developed and are visible to a large number of people. With ecasound,
> the usual story is "1 branch = x devel releases + 1 stable release -->
If there is to be even some development in both branches this would be
a could idea.
> 2) Just looking at the tar.gz filename, you really can't tell whether to
> download 'linux-2.4.1.tar.gz' or 'linux-2.5.1.tar.gz'. With Linux kernel,
> people really do know about the odd-even scheme, but with other packages
> it's different. In my twisted versioning system, you can make the correct
> decision between 'ecasound-1.9.tar.gz' and 'ecasound-1.10dev1.tar.gz'
> without knowledge versioning details (or so I hope ;)).
Actually, I wouldn't worry about this much. GTK+ uses odd-even scheme,
and all you really ever see 1.2.x. The FTP can be a bit confusing, but
if you just keep stable and development versions in their own directories,
things should be clear enough.
One problem that could arise is when a user tries to use some third-party
application, which requires development release. But then, if many apps
do this, and
> - normal users, who don't necessarily care about
> ecasound development, just see the super-normal,
> GNU-compliant ecasound-major.minor.rev.tar.gz
then the normal users would be struck anyway.
-- To unsubscribe send message 'unsubscribe' in the body of the message to <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Feb 07 2001 - 11:32:31 EET