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 <m...@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
_______________________________________________ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
