Re: [RFC] Releases
Alex Converse <alex.converse <at> gmail.com>
2010-06-01 00:28:51 GMT
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Reinhard Tartler <siretart <at> tauware.de> wrote:
> On Mo, Mai 31, 2010 at 19:19:38 (CEST), Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Reinhard Tartler <siretart <at> tauware.de> wrote:
>>> On Mo, Mai 31, 2010 at 17:10:18 (CEST), Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>>>> Back to FFmpeg. Michael (and many others) would like releases out,
>>>> and hate the classical caricature of releases, because we want
>>>> features for end users (that's anyone that uses an application that
>>>> uses FFmpeg). Now, for example, we'd like users to have vp8 decoding
>>>> support (let's leave the licensing issue aside for a second). In the
>>>> past, that might've been any other codec. That is the veyr point of
>>>> our existence. Running out the next 0.5.x doesn't help achieve this
>>>> purpose, which is why we care less about it.
>>>> We'd like a release system that achieves the purpose of getting the
>>>> next big-format decoder to as many end users as possible in the
>>>> least amount of time. Can we think of a release system that achieves
>>> I see no problem in backporting features like libvpx support to
>>> ffmpeg-0.5, since it has little potential for regressions.
>> What about (AAC/)SBR? (AAC/)PS? I'm not sure what else is missing but
>> I think WMAVoice, Sipro are also not part of 0.5.x. MMS-TCP?
>> More generally, I'm trying to ask how much you're willing to backport
>> (assuming you do releases, which I'm very much in favour of).
> I have always considered any backport nominations by the corresponding
> and responsible maintainer.