[FFmpeg-devel] release feedback
Sun Mar 15 12:56:40 CET 2009
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 09:16:32PM +0000, Robert Swain wrote:
> On 14/3/09 19:06, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > The target audience for this release were distributions and projects or
> > companies reusing FFmpeg. From what I have heard they received exactly
> > what they wanted.
> From whom have you heard?
Debian, Fedora, Alt Linux, BSD and a few other packagers, gstreamer,
Xiph, FOMS, GNOME people, to name a few. Google for FFmpeg release
and you will find more.
> > As for the release process, it could surely be improved. It was bad
> > luck that roundup broke at the time we wanted to have the bug fixing
> > weekend. I had hoped that more people would be motivated to work on
> > fixing bugs during this weekend. Some actually did, but the interest
> > was not overwhelming.
> At least the website got a face lift. ;)
Yes, that was nice as well.
> One item of note that is not related to this thread: while Attila is an
> excellent server administrator and provides us with a very good server,
> the response time for the server 'failure' we experienced severely
> stunts development.
A day of downtime every other year or even less is quite a good service
and does IMO not noticeably affect development.
> > One question that remains is whether we should repeat this regularly or
> > at all. Given the positive feedback, I believe we should institute a
> > regular release schedule. I envision time-based releases every 3 or 6
> > months. After some thought, 6 months sounds preferable. It is less
> > disruptive to the development process and a schedule that seem to work
> > well in a lot of other FOSS projects.
> I would like 3-monthly releases.
> [.. long description ..]
> From what I perceive, this is actually what we did for 0.5 as we had to
> back out a few changes that had been made in trunk at the point at which
> we branched to make the code base feasibly releasable.
So in summary this means no process changes. Pick a revision to base
releases on and identify regressions.
> > There is one issue for which I would make an exception right now:
> > LGPL libswscale.
> > Making libswscale compile as LGPL would make it usable for a broader
> > audience of projects / users that cannot use it as GPL. Furthermore,
> > the README in the release is already ambiguous about the issue and
> > it just requires adjusting one or two #ifdefs, so there cannot really
> > be any regressions.
> Do you just intend to backport making libswscale compile under LGPL or
> also rip out imgconvert? I'm guessing the former. If so, I think that
> would be reasonable. If not, I don't.
Just the former of course.
More information about the ffmpeg-devel