[gst-devel] guadec results

[Thomas Vander Stichele]

> * Thomas Vander Stichele <thomas at urgent.rug.ac.be> [20020410 06:15]:
> > b) We established good relations with MAS.
> > 
> 
> does MAS have a webiste?  the obvious searches with google don't turn up
> anything.

http://www.mediaapplicationserver.net/
(apparently mas.net was taken ;) )

> > d) We're in gnome's BugZilla as of now ! Bugzilla is way handier to use 
> > than sourceforge, so I'd suggest you start filing bugs there.  There much 
> > easier to track and follow.  Sourceforge's tracker wasn't working out too 
> > well for us imo ;) So start filing bugs !
> 
> Is this a good idea?  It's certainly unfortunate sf doesn't use
> bugzilla.  But it seems having two bug databases is a mess.  And it's
> not integrated with our mailing lists... which i for one find useful.
> (despite the gawd awful format sf uses)
> 
> you're right that sf tracker doesn't work:  i still have numerous bugs
> and requests that no one has fixed for me. ;)
> 
> did you plan on moving the current bugs to the gnome system?

Yeah, I'd like to do that.  Hopefully this weekend.  I just want to know 
if anyone is ok with that before I do that.

> > bugzilla, general gnome things) and have to put in a little more work in 
> > quality control.  So that's probably what I'll be focussing on from now on 
> > until we have a good 0.5.0, with our semi-stable API we can commit to for 
> > some time while the core hackers can go back to messing up the core again 
> > <g>.

> as far as versioning... i still think we should bump the minor number
> every release we break compatability.  and use micro for just fixes and
> improvements that don't effect lib users.  and do libtool versioning.
> but i guess no one else agrees...

I agree with you from 0.5.0 on.  I think we should do a 0.4.0 as soon as 
we're relatively ok with our practices we want to commit to for the long 
run (which I'll be sanitychecking with the 0.3.4 release this weekend) and 
then finally a 0.5.0 when we're happy with the changes we want.

In short, 0.4.0 is the "good practices" tree, where we do stuff cleanly 
and add the features we still need, then 0.5.0 is the stable api release 
from which point (IMO of course) we can do lib versioning and stuff.
We need to settle down at least a little now that rhythmbox has arrived.

> i put in some outstanding bugs that effect alot of the api.  the macro
> and function renaming thing as well as the addition of glib-mkenums
> code.  i'll do all that when i have time (ie, very busy now, i have no
> idea when) but how does this mesh with release plans?  it's going to
> break every app that isn't fixed for it.  if you want to call 0.4.0
> "solid" and continue with current versioning scheme i'd suggest we
> continue 0.3.{4,5,6,...} until no one has pending major api changes to
> do.

The macro fixes should go in really really soon IMO.  Have we settled on 
the dicussion yet ? You're right in that we can't reasonably do a 0.4.0 
before that.  Please put this in bugzilla so that I can work with the 
targets and stuff.

> is there more that needs to be discussed about macro renames?  i'm not
> sure we ever came to a decision on irc about doing it for all the
> functions and macros that are not in standard format. ?

Let's decide.  I think the general consensus was to do it in a way that is 
compliant with gtk.

Thomas

-- 

The Dave/Dina Project : future TV today ! - http://davedina.apestaart.org/
<-*-                      -*->
I could do so much harm
I could do you no good
I'll leave a stain in your heart I would
<-*- thomas at apestaart.org -*->
URGent, the best radio on the Internet - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.rug.ac.be/