[gst-devel] RELEASE: GStreamer Good Plug-ins 0.10.15 'I've been up all night'

[Felipe Contreras]

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Edward Hervey <bilboed at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 13:09 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Jan Schmidt <thaytan at noraisin.net> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 10:27 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:19 AM,  <thaytan at noraisin.net> wrote:
>> >> > This mail announces the release of GStreamer Good Plug-ins 0.10.15 'I've been up all night'.
>> >>
>> >> <snip/>
>> >>
>> >> > Contributors to this release
>> >> >
>> >> >      * Alessandro Decina
>> >> >      * Andy Wingo
>> >> >      * Arnout Vandecappelle
>> >> >      * Aurelien Grimaud
>> >> >      * Benjamin Otte
>> > *snip*
>> >
>> >> >      * Youness Alaoui
>> >> >      * Zaheer Merali
>> >>
>> >> Why don't you use 'git short-log' instead?
>> >> git shortlog RELEASE-0_10_14..RELEASE-0.10.15
>> >
>> > Yes, I noticed that the contributor list had some extra entries in it as
>> > artefacts of the plugin moves, but couldn't be bothered to filter and
>> > remove them.
>> >
>> > *snip*
>> >
>> >> Take a look:
>> >> Alessandro Decina (2):
>> >>       avidemux: don't post an error if EOS can't be pushed downstream.
>> >>       speexdec: make speex_dec_convert work with same-format values
>> >> when no data has been decoded.
>> >>
>> >> Andy Wingo (10):
>> >>       only use struct ip_mreqn if it is detected
>> >>       fix format string in pngdec
>> >>       [MOVED FROM BAD] s/@GST_PLUGIN_LDFLAGS@/$(GST_PLUGIN_LDFLAGS)/
>> >> @-substitued variables variables are defined as make variables
>> >> automagi...
>> >>       [MOVED FROM BAD] removal of //-style comments don't link plugins
>> >> to core libs -- the versioning is done internally to the plugins
>> >> with...
>> >
>> > *snip*
>> >
>> > I don't like it, to be honest. If people want that level of detail, it's
>> > already in the ChangeLog.
>>
>> The changelog doesn't show that Andy Wingo did 10 commits for 0.10.15, does it?
>
>  Sure, but we care more about authors than commiters, so that's not
> really an issue.
>
>>
>> Have you tried the -s option?
>> git shortlog -s RELEASE-0_10_14..RELEASE-0.10.15
>>
>> While we are at it, why the inconsistent
>> RELEASE-MAJOR_MINOR_MICRO/RELEASE-MAJOR.MINOR.MICRO? Old inconsistent
>> tags can be dropped in favor of consistent ones which in turn could be
>> more common ones: vMAJOR.MINOR.MICRO.
>
>  We'll consider that around 0.11.
>
>  Those are all interesting ideas, but we prefer doing it the current
> way. Thanks for your suggestions.

You *already* changed the format:
RELEASE-0_10_14
RELEASE-0.10.15

What is so different to v0.10.16 that it needs to wait to 0.11?

-- 
Felipe Contreras