[gst-devel] GStreamer status, 20 Sept 2005

[Bastien Nocera]

On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 13:58 +0200, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:
> Hi Bastien,
> 
> 
> > You can still install newer versions of Totem on FC4. The 1.0 branch
> > won't require any additional dependencies
> 
> ... which is the branch that is not receiving that much bug fixing wrt.
> GStreamer, right ? AFAIK you're not working on anything
> GStreamer-related for Totem.

Most of the fixes go in GStreamer itself, not really in the GStreamer
backend. Take a look at the commit messages in the ChangeLog, and tell
me how much work was done on the GStreamer backend compared to front-end
work.

All the bug fixes for crashers go to both branches, so whether you're
using 1.0.x or 1.2.x, the only real thing that will fix bugs is a new
version of GStreamer and its plugins.

> > , the 1.2 branch will require
> > iso-codes (for the menu language, RPMs available), and a newer D-Bus
> > (for the Mozilla plugin, rebuild the current rawhide D-Bus RPMs and
> > there you go).
> 
> ... right, which is something a user typically won't do and which RedHat
> won't provide as an update to FC4.

True, but that's something you would easily be able to push along with
your Totem RPMs if you wanted users to test those on FC4.

> > And I never reply that a particular bug has been fixed in the unstable
> > version unless it would be impossible to backport the fixes to the
> > stable version. Ancient versions (prior to 1.0), with backtraces with no
> > debugging symbols will get that treatment.
> 
> I'm particularly talking about the past up to now, and the GStreamer
> backend.  I don't know if you have done much work on the
> GStreamer-specific bits in the past; I'm mostly talking about the things
> Ronald has worked on.

I have, and apart from new features (like his work on the Mozilla plugin
or the new volume widget), and front-end specific work, Ronald hasn't
done extensive bug fixes on the GStreamer backend itself. That's because
it's not the backend that needs work, but GStreamer itself and the
plugins.

> > > b) the Totem that is currently being developed only ever gets tested by
> > > a handful of developers and some brave jhbuild souls.  This totem indeed
> > > has bug fixes, but also new features, and can only be run by people who
> > > take very great effort into building latest CVS of everything.  It is
> > > impossible to package this new version of totem for wider testing by
> > > users that would love to provide bug reports about any feature you're
> > > currently working on *when* you're working on it.
> > 
> > Impossible to package for what? For FC3? Yeah, it's hard to package for
> > FC3, but the switch to GTK+ 2.6 was necessary to take advantage of new
> > features available to us.
> 
> This comment is based on my past experience.  When FC4 wasn't out yet,
> the bug fixes going in for the GStreamer back-end were not possible to
> package for FC3 (which then was the lastest stable release), and only
> after specifically having Ronald work on a backport of some of those
> fixes for Totem was I able to ship an rpm for it that did solve *a lot*
> of user complaints.
> 
> You've told me that in the future this will be less of a problem, and
> I'm looking forward to that being the case.  I was using my past
> experience with Totem as an example for why it's not a good idea to
> always rely on the latest and greatest; I might be wrong, but nothing
> you've said here contradicts that.

A bad idea? I don't see how. Using a newer version of GTK+ has allowed
us to remove code (less code, less bugs), or use new features of GTK+
that would make Totem faster.

> > Saying that you require CVS version of everything is a load of BS.
> 
> Again, was talking about my specific experience in the six months Ronald
> was working for us with Totem being one of his specific assignments.  In
> that period between FC3 and FC4, and until Ronald made a specific
> backport patch, the only way anyone here was able to run the version of
> Totem that Ronald was doing GStreamer fixes on was one built from
> jhbuild, with a whole set of deps from CVS.

That's untrue. You will only need a newer glib and gtk+ on FC3 to be
able to run Totem 1.0.x, and the iso-codes packages for Totem 1.2.x.

> >  And
> > so you know, I'll probably be pushing the HEAD branch of Totem to use
> > GTK+ 2.8 when FC5 is out. The 1.0 and 1.2 branches will still work fine
> > on older distros.
> 
> Sounds very sensible.  You're pretty much making the same point as me -
> it makes sense to have your requirements be "stuff shipped by latest
> stable versions of major distros".  Unless I'm misunderstanding you ?

The run-up to Totem 1.0 was the exception to the rule, as the need to
use new GTK+ features was greater than getting large-scale testing. See
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=160807 for the list of changes
we made with the switch to GTK+ 2.6.x.

---
Bastien Nocera <hadess at hadess.net>