Re: ALSA release cycle

[David Henningsson <david.henningsson@canonical.com>]

On 09/07/2012 01:58 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
> 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?

I took that up as an alternative. I think more people leaned towards six 
month cycles, but it's still an open question.

To me, I also think aligning releases to the kernel makes sense, but 
it'll also mean a lot of releases with little change in, so maybe six 
month cycles are better for that reason.


-- 
David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd.
https://launchpad.net/~diwic