Thu Jan 29 15:26:53 CET 2009
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:35:20 -0800
Mike Melanson <mike at multimedia.cx> wrote:
> Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > Let's get the two biggest bikeshed topics out of the way right now:
> > - release date: weekend 2009-02-21/22
> > - release name: 0.5
> > There, progress, it feels so great...
> Awesome. No argument here. Does anyone have a reason why we shouldn't go
> with 0.5 for a release?
Why 0.5 ? Is it to make people think this is the successor of the
(never released) 0.4.9 ? IMHO it is not the successor of 0.4.9, it
is much more than that.
0.5 can also be confusing related to the library major number. People
will wonder, "hey, I downloaded 0.5 but I still only get libavutil49 !"
(IIRC 49 was derived from 0.4.9)....
Also, if we choose 0.5, what will be next version ? 0.5.1 ? 0.6 ? Will
we discuss this at each release ?
The alternative to avoid any confusion and any discussion about how
much we increase the number at each release is obviously to use date
as the release number (be it Y.MM or YYYY.MM or YYYYMMDD).
It seems I'm not the only one who think it would be better:
More information about the ffmpeg-devel