From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Mack Subject: Re: ALSA release cycle Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:58:28 +0200 Message-ID: <5049E164.3000405@gmail.com> References: <5049DCA4.6000607@canonical.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-bk0-f51.google.com (mail-bk0-f51.google.com [209.85.214.51]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED0542616C9 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 13:58:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: by bkuw5 with SMTP id w5so1099251bku.38 for ; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 04:58:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5049DCA4.6000607@canonical.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: David Henningsson Cc: "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On 07.09.2012 13:38, David Henningsson wrote: > Hi, > > At Plumber's we discussed the ALSA release cycle. Our releases recently > have been irregular, and the reasoning behind why a release was done at > that time, has not been very obvious. > > IIRC, we kind of leaned towards releasing every six months. I don't > remember if there was any consensus about whether to try to align this > cycle to something else (e g Gnome, KDE, Fedora, Ubuntu, etc), or not. ... or the kernel? At least for the kernel parts of ALSA, syncing an ALSA version to kernel version would automatically tell us which patches will make it into a new release. Plus, it would also be easier to compare feature sets (something like "ALSA 1.0.26 gives us what we have in kernel 3.6"). Would that be feasible or am I missing something? Daniel