Re: [Lame-dev] 3.98beta

[Robert H. <Rob...@gm...>]

Hi Gabriel,

Am Dienstag, 22. Mai 2007 21:06 schrieb Gabriel Bouvigne:
> Some just sent me a mail about 3.98 beta....so I discovered that we
> released a 3.98b1/2/3

well, we are in beta state, without an official full featured release, else
I would have mentioned it here before. It wasn't easy to get feedback 
for yet another alpha "release" (in quotes, because there are no alpha
releases too), so it helped quite some.

> I was also thinking that we should release a 3.98beta, as I think that
> the work done on 3.98 deserved to be used widely.
> I initially planned some code from my side, but due to external
> considerations it won't be ready soon.
>
>
> Let's use this mail to expose my view of beta versions regarding Lame:
>
> *Beta versions are less usual than alpha ones, and more care should be
> applied

true, but not only for stable or even beta releases.

> *Before releasing a beta version, it might be a good idea to send a mail
> to lame-dev, in order to inform potentially interested people about it

Yes, when it comes to a real "release". Back in december the target date
for a beta release was January/February, following a stable release in
March/April. We are a bit late on it.

> *A beta version should be tagged into the cvs

Sure, every memorial snapshot should be tagged and I think this was
done so.

> *A beta should have a package (file release) available on sourceforge
>
> *A beta version should, as much as possible, be prepared for the
> different platforms (version number bumped into the the package files).
> Usually, someone interested is taking care of it once the "planning"
> mail is sent to lame-dev

The "latest news" on sourceforge announces a 3.97 beta release.

> *When we want to reach a beta stage, we should try to have a look at
> pending bug reports and patches.

I have to disagree here. We should always and regulary take a look
at pending bug reports and patches. Doing it when entering beta
stage is far too late, Original posters of bug reports may have been
long gone then.

>
> *Beta should be mentionned in the history.html file, as it's publically
> reffered from the website

the website referred "LAME 3.98 development"

> *As releasing a beta is not something we do often, and takes some time,
> it's usually best to wait a little before releasing a new beta version.
>
> Of course, this is the theory, and the real process might be quite
> different.
>
> However, I would prefer that we would not reach beta 5 or 6 on the next
> week.
>
> If beta 3 is supposed to be "stable", perhaps we could try to plan a
> more "usual" beta 4 (updated docs, sourceforge release, pending patches?)

I'm open for suggestions about the timeline we want to have a full
featured release for beta and stable. The things I had in mind for VBR NEW
are now in CVS. It took some time longer, because I had to assemble a
new PC first, as the old harddisk and motherboard gave up, then I had to
rewrite some of the once written code again.


I would like to apologize, if someone feels ignored.



Ciao Robert