From: Darin M. <lam...@hy...> - 2001-12-26 17:01:03
|
Hello, > > LAME 3.90 stable was just released. I'm not about to go and suggest that > > everyone download a "CVS snapshot" or something else because of a bug that > > should have been fixed, that other people should be showing interest in > > getting addressed as soon as possible just as much as I am. There *should* > > have been a 3.90.2 and there wasn't, so I made one. However, for everyone > > How fast do you think this should have happened? Had you cantacted a > maintainer and asked for a bugfix release? It should have happened the minute a maintainer read my post about this issue to the dev-list, which was a few days ago by now. The fix is extraordinarily trivial, yet nothing has been done at all to release a new "officially" fixed version. > I agree that there should have been a fast reaction, but a "don't > download at the moment, there's a bug, please wait until the official > bugfix release or download this 3.91 alpha version, which is 3.90+fix" > would have been enough. This is unacceptable in my opinion. There's no need to tell users to wait for something which could be fixed in a minute or two as I have already done. There's also no need to tell people to download a 3.91 alpha or CVS snapshot. > > who takes issue with this, if you had actually downloaded the file and > > examined it, in the file_id.diz it specifically states "Unofficial Release". > > You asked how much people read notes at the webpage, I ask how much > people read file_id.diz. > There are people which don't care about both. And some of those may > think 3.90.2 is an official release. > > Make sure everything is seperated into official and inofficial at the > download page and I didn't care. Perhaps these people *should* care about some of those things before they make the effort to complain to the list? > > What I believe is that I'm growing tired of dealing with this sort of > > reaction. In my work on LAME over the past months, at every step of the > > way there has been at least one vocal opponent to the progress being made. > > Why not see it as a try to be helpful and a try to improve things beyond > the work you already did? Take it as a challenge, either your work is > better than those opponents are wrong and you just have enlighten them, > or your work is improvable, then you can have a look at it and learn > from it. Trolling someone is not something one can use to make improvements upon code with. Heh. Now, I'm not going to flame you, but the statement you just made is fairly uninformed about the issues that have happened in the past. A short summary (which I'd rather not go into): 1. Julius resorted to name calling and making an ass out of himself, and basically flaming everyone on r3mix.net who was working with --nspsytune for some unknown reason. The data myself and others were collecting where continuously being verified via abx (double blind listening tests) from multiple people over a wide variety of tests. His "opposition" was simple trolling and nothing else. Check r3mix.net and look up some of the early discussions about --nspsytune and --nssafejoint, everything is archived there. 2. Roel had some points in our arguments, but it basically boiled down to the fact that he acknowledged that --dm-preset standard (which isn't nearly as advanced as --alt-preset standard) was higher quality than --r3mix, but that it didn't matter because --r3mix was "good enough" for him, so it had to be good enough for everyone else. Again, this was despite double blind listening test results from other people continually verifying that indeed --r3mix was NOT good enough. This was a matter of ego and pride, not wanting to admit that the --r3mix switch was flawed and that a better solution had been found. This was also despite the fact that I DID try to help Roel improve --r3mix initially, before I realized that improvements to HIS preset was not going to happen, especially if he couldn't hear a difference or a see a point in it. 3. My issues with Dmitry I have already explained. So, in conclusion, NOT A SINGLE ONE of those people offered a damn thing towards improving my work. It was not constructive critism, it was opposition based on pride and ego, and nothing else and in the end, it did nothing other than waste a whole lot of time. If you want to see a list of those who have helped me improve my code, check here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=260 Look at the list at the bottom of the first post. Almost every single one of the people listed there has helped me immensly via listening tests, finding and point out problems in quality, or something related. These few people with "issues" that I mentioned above, have done nothing to offer help (with the exception of Roel initially finding Velvet, but that was before all of this). > > improvements to a project. That's not to say I can't handle criticism, I > > actually welcome it. What I do not welcome is trolling and disrespectful > > behavior, especially when it starts to involve childish matters such as name > > calling or something of the like. At least in the case of Dmitry, I do not > [...] > > trying to "be nice" anymore. I *have* been more than forgiving thus far, > > but this latest issue has pissed me off. I try to do something to help the > > users which nobody else on this list is doing at the moment (by not > > releasing a 3.90.2 or 3.91 or whatever else quickly) and of course he takes > > Come on, it's christmas. Everybody has (more or less) a real life too. > Mark isn't even available, and he did the 3.90 release. I not only fixed > the vbrquantize.h issue in the CVS, I also released 3.90.1. I had to > determine how to do this, and I hadn't much time available to do it. > At the moment I spent my time to answer mails regarding this issue > (instead of preparing 3.91). > If you don't mind, I want to wait for an answer from you an J.D. > regarding the preset reorganisation (it would be nice if we could have > it in 3.91 too, see my other message why). If he is able to provide a > working patch this year (and you didn't tell us some important facts why > the proposed change in the other message is stupid), I put a note at the > webpage to wait until 3.91, else I release 3.91 (perhaps tomorrow). Yes, it's Christmas for sure. Which is why I worked extra fast to release a bug fixed version for everyone to use. And which is why I wonder why the hell Dmitry has to make a fuss about it. > > What I believe I'm seeing here in this case more than anything, and what I > > find disturbing, is that apparently a strong initiative is not very welcome > > in this project by a few vocal members. That's too bad really because to > > push development forward, it could certainly use such a thing. There comes > > a time when things should just be "done" (or in this case "fixed") instead > > of just sitting around talking about it to no end. This was one of those > > times. > > See my "it's chrismas" comment. I also haven't seen a "please release > another version" request. OK. Please release another version (3.90.1 with my fixes) :) Regards, Darin |