From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp>
Subject: Re: Scheduled alsa-lib release?
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 17:40:30 +0900
Message-ID: <56DFE17E.4090105@sakamocchi.jp>
References: <s5hr3fk9apc.wl-tiwai@suse.de> <20160309061624.GU11154@localhost>
 <s5hbn6ob2fc.wl-tiwai@suse.de> <56DFD4FD.8090701@sakamocchi.jp>
 <s5h1t7kay1k.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org>
Received: from smtp301.phy.lolipop.jp (smtp301.phy.lolipop.jp [210.157.22.84])
 by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14E6C260524
 for <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>; Wed,  9 Mar 2016 09:40:33 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <s5h1t7kay1k.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/options/alsa-devel>,
 <mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel>,
 <mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org
Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
Cc: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org
List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org

On Mar 9 2016 16:52, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 08:47:09 +0100,
> Takashi Sakamoto wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mar 9 2016 15:17, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:16:24 +0100,
>>> Vinod Koul wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:49:19PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> in the previous meeting, there have been requests about the regular
>>>>> "predictable" release of alsa-lib.  We thought of aligning with kernel
>>>>> release cycle, judging from the nature of alsa-lib.
>>
>> As a quick glance of the number of commits per month (see in the end of
>> this message), alsa-lib is not so actively developed recently. (except
>> for topology APIs)
>>
>> I think releasing every 2 months makes the release maintenance effort
>> more hard than its actual advantage. It better to release alsa-lib for 2
>> or more kernel release cycles.
>
> Yes, that was the proposal in the meeting.  It wasn't meant to release
> every cycle.
>
> The point is to align with the kernel release cycle so that people can
> know the possible release point beforehand.  The actual release can be
> skipped easily if nothing happens, of course.

To me, it doesn't mean _scheduled_ release. It's just within a policy 
for releasing about an aspect of 'date'.

Anyway, I have no objections about it, as long as the cycle is not so 
frequent and people are not so busy for the release maintenance.


Regards

Takashi Skamaoto