Thu Jan 29 15:45:19 CET 2009
Aurelien Jacobs <aurel at gnuage.org> writes:
> 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).
Another alternative is to call this release 1, the next one 2, and so
mans at mansr.com
More information about the ffmpeg-devel