Re: ALSA release cycle

[Daniel Mack <zonque@gmail.com>]

On 07.09.2012 14:51, David Henningsson wrote:
> 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.

Which would correspond to every 2nd kernel release then. Plus, in case
we would ever want stable branches of the ALSA kernel code base, the
work for picking the appropriate patches is also already done for us.

Such a correlation would really help to picture what version of drivers
people are on when they write about issues they have with a specific
ALSA version.


Daniel