[vlc-devel] The case for 2.0

Pierre Ynard linkfanel at yahoo.fr
Sun Jan 8 01:15:48 CET 2012

> > Major versions are about features rather than bugfixes.
> And 1.2 does not bring enough features?

Maybe, I'm just saying.

> > What would be Rincewind's version number then? 3.0?
> Yes.

So now we're not talking about just the next release, but all majors
releases from now on. Will all following releases bring as many features
as Twoflower, and be way beyond and different from the previous one, and
feature a license change, to warrant the same number bump?

> > With just 4 months dedicated to its development before the feature
> > freeze, are you trying
> How is it 4 months? The trunk is already opened to features, since quite
> some time...

Time we're supposed to spend fixing bugs, trying to get Twoflower out.
Not *dedicated* to new features. As Rémi said, the only new feature
being 10 bit support, I think this speaks for itself...

> > to jump on the bandwagon of the lame fast-increasing numbering scheme
> > of internet browsers?
> The internet browsers decided to do a 6weeks release schedule. Not a 6
> months one. Moreover, the longer we wait for releasing, the more long is
> the stabilization period.

Rather than trying to pin landmarks on an empty timeline, it would be
better to plan what big features we want in the next version. The fact
that this an opensource project driven by volunteers doesn't mean that
we can't at least try to do this.

Pierre Ynard
"Une âme dans un corps, c'est comme un dessin sur une feuille de papier."

More information about the vlc-devel mailing list