[gst-devel] 0.9 status

[Stefan Kost]

hi thomas,

what about:
-gold, -tin and -rusty
-shiny, -stained (or -patchy) and -dirty
-uptodate, -outdated and -abandoned
-healthy, -ill and -dying

okay, I am stopping ;)

Stefan

Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> An update on the state of 0.9
> 
> I still need to split up the gst-plugins module; I've attached a
> spreadsheet that lists all plugins + elements we have, their license,
> and their status.
> 
> I've decided I want to name the three modules -good, -ugly and -bad.
> Some names have been thrown around in the past, but none of them are
> short enough or convey nicely what they contain.  So unless people come
> up with a better suggestion, I'll stick with these.  (Since we can move
> around a complete CVS tree, we can still rename if we feel like it).
> 
> - good would contain code that lives up to our standards, is
> LGPL-licensed, adequately tested, ... It is comparable to -base, except
> that we decided that -base would only contain the elements it contains
> now.
> 
> - ugly would contain code that lives up to our standards, but is "ugly"
> because something prevents it from being in -good.  Most likely, this is
> a non-LGPL license or a known patent problem.  Stuff like mad,
> mpeg2dec, ... would live here.
> 
> - bad contains code that's not up to standard, not tested enough, just
> recently added and not yet fully working, ... Licensing/patent
> issues/... isn't really that important.  Code can be promoted from this
> module to either good or ugly, if the quality is improved.
> 
> The oo sheet attached lists where I would put each plugin; the ones that
> are undecided would probably default to bad until someone works on them.
> 
> After this is done, we can start doing a new release with these modules
> included.
> 
> I'd like to get this over with this week, so start flaming !