[vlc-devel] The case for 2.0
linkfanel at yahoo.fr
Sun Jan 8 15:47:02 CET 2012
> The current development process has three levels of release (major
> releases, bugfix releases and repackaging), yet the versioning scheme
> has four (major number, minor number, revision number and optional
> packaging letter). This is inconsistent, and that is why this is not
> the first time we debate whether to increment the major version or the
> minor one.
> Unless someone has a better idea on how to use the major version
> number, I think it would make sense to use it for stable branches /
> major release / whatever-you-want-to-call-them.
We could use the major versions for important amounts of changes like in
Twoflower. And not use them for releases that are just yet another bunch
of small improvements and additions to the codec list.
> Feature-based versus time-based. The project history suggests that
> feature-based releases simply don't work because there is not enough
> commitment to finishing features, and time-based releases don't work
> because there is not enough commitment to stabilizing branches.
> So unless one of you turns into a VLCtropic billionaire, this is
> screwed either way.
Alright, you convinced me, this is doomed so I give up on the project,
it's only logical.
"Une âme dans un corps, c'est comme un dessin sur une feuille de papier."
More information about the vlc-devel