Sorry I did not follow recent devs very closely recently. What currently prevents us from releasing the 1.0?
Back from holidays, I was happy to see the steady traffic on
savonet-users. One of the things that comes out is that we need to get
back to work towards liquidsoap 1.0.
First, Romain expressed the need for a new bugfix release. This would
be a fix of 0.9.2, which was itself a snapshot of 1.0: it wasn't meant
to be stable, polished and documented, and was really not backward
compatible. It seems silly to fix a snapshot. The silliness actually
started before, as many people started using 0.9.2 without noticing
its snapshot status. Also, 0.9.2 was sent to debian as other
I don't have a very clear opinion on how to fix this mess, but I've
thought of the reasons for our problems, and come up with a proposal
for future version numbers. Tell me what you think about it.
Version numbers MAJOR.MINOR.FIX are made of three integer numbers:
- Versions with the same MAJOR number should be backward compatible.
We may increase the MAJOR number without breaking compatibility,
e.g. in case of a major implementation change.
- Increases of the FIX number are only used for bugfixes,
they can introduce (backward compatible) differences if meaningful
for the fix, e.g. introducing a setting.
Using the FIX number for snapshots doesn't leave room for bugfixes.
Using MINOR=9 (or 99) as we did for signalling a soon-to-be-coming
version 1.0.0 turned out to be not so soon and didn't leave room
for normally numbered releases.
SNAPSHOT versions should be named alpha releases, e.g. 1.0.0 alpha.
We shall similarly use beta, beta1, beta2, etc.
Note that it makes it difficult to tell what versions come before
or after an alpha/beta, but this is probably a good thing: the beta
(development) versions are unrelated to normal (stable) versions.
Typically, alpha and beta versions will have their own SCM branch.
The special keywords alpha and beta invalidate compatibility rules:
obviously, 0.9.x and 1.0.0 beta may be incompatible, but 1.0.0 beta1
and beta2 may also be incompatible.
I propose that we start using this scheme with 1.0 beta1. That version
should come soon: we want to release the bugfixes, and get more people
to test the current version of liquidsoap. I've gone through the open
tickets, and there doesn't seem to be anything really critical.
Documentation might be the most pressing issue. Lots of things are
still dirty or unstable, but it's acceptable for a beta and we need to
move on. In particular, midi and video are still quite immature. The
clock system is not quite finished: I'm still unhappy with the naming,
and many I/O operators still have a buffered mode that is a bit
The beta version could play the role of the bugfix for 0.9.2:
otherwise, what would be different between the two? If a separate
bugfix is needed, I guess it should be 0.9.3: it doesn't make sense
but the numbering is already broken.
This SF.net email is sponsored by
Make an app they can't live without
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
Savonet-devl mailing list