Hi Klaus, I see you are very busy in developing the new vdr-1.7.* (thanks for your great work !). But what about stable vdr-1.6.0? You released two patches which should result in version vdr-1.6.1. AFAIR there were no complaints about these patches, so I think it's save to release vdr-1.6.1 in order to rule off the last stable version.
Regards,
Joachim
On Dienstag, 16. Juni 2009, Joachim Welker wrote:
Hi Klaus, I see you are very busy in developing the new vdr-1.7.* (thanks for your great work !). But what about stable vdr-1.6.0? You released two patches which should result in version vdr-1.6.1. AFAIR there were no complaints about these patches, so I think it's save to release vdr-1.6.1 in order to rule off the last stable version.
Well, if the goal is to release a vdr-1.6.1 version, I suggest to first collect further patches needed to compile it on recent systems: * compiling with gcc-4.4 and glibc-2.10: fixing some variable const issues and some other warnings * compiling against linux-headers with s2api (api version 5)
The gentoo versions of these patches are attached. The gcc-4.4 patch is based on Ludwig Nussels version plus improvments of Klaus. The last const_cast is replaced by using the fileName member of cRecording as cRecordings is a friend class.
I don't know if more fixes are floating around that need to be applied.
Regards Matthias
On 06/16/09 10:30, Joachim Welker wrote:
Hi Klaus, I see you are very busy in developing the new vdr-1.7.* (thanks for your great work !). But what about stable vdr-1.6.0? You released two patches which should result in version vdr-1.6.1. AFAIR there were no complaints about these patches, so I think it's save to release vdr-1.6.1 in order to rule off the last stable version.
I'm dedicating all my spare time to the 1.7.x development, so I'm afraid I just can't work on a 1.6.1.
Klaus
I thought you could just release vdr-1.6.1 with the patches you have already published (maybe with additional dvb_api patch) . Are there more bugfixes planed?
2009/6/17 Klaus Schmidinger Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de
On 06/16/09 10:30, Joachim Welker wrote:
Hi Klaus, I see you are very busy in developing the new vdr-1.7.* (thanks for your great work !). But what about stable vdr-1.6.0? You released two patches which should result in version vdr-1.6.1. AFAIR there were no complaints about these patches, so I think it's save to release vdr-1.6.1 in order to rule off the last stable version.
I'm dedicating all my spare time to the 1.7.x development, so I'm afraid I just can't work on a 1.6.1.
Klaus
vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
On 17.06.2009 19:03, J.W. wrote:
I thought you could just release vdr-1.6.1 with the patches you have already published (maybe with additional dvb_api patch) . Are there more bugfixes planed?
I released VDR 1.6.0 only because several people wanted to have a stable release just before switching to the DVB-S2 API. Sure, I could release a 1.6.1 now, but that would be exactly the same as 1.6.0 plus the two patches 1.6.0-1 and 1.6.0-2. But would that actually be a big help? There's already quite some backporting of version 1.7.x stuff going on...
I guess I'm going to concentrate entirely on version 1.7.x.
BTW: I'll be on vacation from next thursday, so don't expect anything new in the next couple of weeks ;-)
Klaus
2009/6/17 Klaus Schmidinger <Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de mailto:Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de>
On 06/16/09 10:30, Joachim Welker wrote: > Hi Klaus, > I see you are very busy in developing the new vdr-1.7.* (thanks for your > great work !). But what about stable vdr-1.6.0? You released two patches > which should result in version vdr-1.6.1. AFAIR there were no complaints > about these patches, so I think it's save to release vdr-1.6.1 in order > to rule off the last stable version. I'm dedicating all my spare time to the 1.7.x development, so I'm afraid I just can't work on a 1.6.1. Klaus
On 21.06.2009 17:08, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 17.06.2009 19:03, J.W. wrote:
I thought you could just release vdr-1.6.1 with the patches you have already published (maybe with additional dvb_api patch) . Are there more bugfixes planed?
I released VDR 1.6.0 only because several people wanted to have a stable release just before switching to the DVB-S2 API. Sure, I could release a 1.6.1 now, but that would be exactly the same as 1.6.0 plus the two patches 1.6.0-1 and 1.6.0-2. But would that actually be a big help? There's already quite some backporting of version 1.7.x stuff going on...
I guess I'm going to concentrate entirely on version 1.7.x.
Hmmm, this could also be a great opportunity: Why not nominate someone as the official maintainer of the 1.6 stable branch? Someone who collects or back-ports fixes and smaller enhancements to the 1.6 branch, and does minor releases based on community feedback?
Of course this should be limited to small changes, and should not include patches that aren't even in the 1.7 line, to avoid splitting up the development. We don't want to end with two feature-incompatible versions of VDR. But there are enough small changes and enhancements in 1.7 that could also be ported to 1.6 without breaking stability and compatibility.
This would also be a small but fine step towards a more community-driven development of VDR, and a good test whether something like this would work for VDR development in general.
Cheers,
Udo
On Sunday 21 June 2009, Udo Richter wrote:
On 21.06.2009 17:08, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 17.06.2009 19:03, J.W. wrote:
I thought you could just release vdr-1.6.1 with the patches you have already published (maybe with additional dvb_api patch) . Are there more bugfixes planed?
I released VDR 1.6.0 only because several people wanted to have a stable release just before switching to the DVB-S2 API. Sure, I could release a 1.6.1 now, but that would be exactly the same as 1.6.0 plus the two patches 1.6.0-1 and 1.6.0-2. But would that actually be a big help? There's already quite some backporting of version 1.7.x stuff going on...
I guess I'm going to concentrate entirely on version 1.7.x.
Hmmm, this could also be a great opportunity: Why not nominate someone as the official maintainer of the 1.6 stable branch? Someone who collects or back-ports fixes and smaller enhancements to the 1.6 branch, and does minor releases based on community feedback?
Yes, please! Udo, are you volunteering? ;)
Am 25.06.2009 21:55, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
On Sunday 21 June 2009, Udo Richter wrote:
On 21.06.2009 17:08, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 17.06.2009 19:03, J.W. wrote:
I thought you could just release vdr-1.6.1 with the patches you have already published (maybe with additional dvb_api patch) . Are there more bugfixes planed?
I released VDR 1.6.0 only because several people wanted to have a stable release just before switching to the DVB-S2 API. Sure, I could release a 1.6.1 now, but that would be exactly the same as 1.6.0 plus the two patches 1.6.0-1 and 1.6.0-2. But would that actually be a big help? There's already quite some backporting of version 1.7.x stuff going on...
I guess I'm going to concentrate entirely on version 1.7.x.
Hmmm, this could also be a great opportunity: Why not nominate someone as the official maintainer of the 1.6 stable branch? Someone who collects or back-ports fixes and smaller enhancements to the 1.6 branch, and does minor releases based on community feedback?
Yes, please! Udo, are you volunteering? ;)
Seconded.
- jan
On 25.06.2009 21:55, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Hmmm, this could also be a great opportunity: Why not nominate someone as the official maintainer of the 1.6 stable branch? Someone who collects or back-ports fixes and smaller enhancements to the 1.6 branch, and does minor releases based on community feedback?
Yes, please! Udo, are you volunteering? ;)
Thanks for the confidence in me, but actually, I would prefer not to.
I already don't have enough spare time to keep up with my existing projects. And I wanted to focus on moving towards 1.7.x, which is not feature-complete from my point of view now.
This doesn't mean that I wouldn't help out in keeping 1.6.x up to date. But I simply cannot promise to have the necessary time.
1.6.x stable should be maintained by someone who really uses it in the future, to keep an eye on stability, and who has at least the time to keep tings from stalling for months.
Cheers,
Udo
On Samstag, 27. Juni 2009, Udo Richter wrote:
On 25.06.2009 21:55, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Hmmm, this could also be a great opportunity: Why not nominate someone as the official maintainer of the 1.6 stable branch? Someone who collects or back-ports fixes and smaller enhancements to the 1.6 branch, and does minor releases based on community feedback?
Yes, please! Udo, are you volunteering? ;)
Thanks for the confidence in me, but actually, I would prefer not to.
I already don't have enough spare time to keep up with my existing projects. And I wanted to focus on moving towards 1.7.x, which is not feature-complete from my point of view now.
This doesn't mean that I wouldn't help out in keeping 1.6.x up to date. But I simply cannot promise to have the necessary time.
1.6.x stable should be maintained by someone who really uses it in the future, to keep an eye on stability, and who has at least the time to keep tings from stalling for months.
Well, I am not keen on doing this, but to get some progress I at least did upload my git tree based on vdr-1.6.0-2 version of git://vdr.gekrumbel.de/vdr.git to github:
http://github.com/zzam/vdr/tree/stable git://github.com/zzam/vdr.git Branch "stable"
It contains up to now only my three patches I already posted in this thread.
Regards Matthias
Matthias Schwarzottzzam@gentoo.org schrieb am 28.06.2009 um 21:55:
On Samstag, 27. Juni 2009, Udo Richter wrote:
On 25.06.2009 21:55, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Hmmm, this could also be a great opportunity: Why not nominate someone as the official maintainer of the 1.6 stable branch? Someone who collects or back-ports fixes and smaller enhancements to the 1.6 branch, and does minor releases based on community feedback?
Yes, please! Udo, are you volunteering? ;)
Thanks for the confidence in me, but actually, I would prefer not to.
I already don't have enough spare time to keep up with my existing projects. And I wanted to focus on moving towards 1.7.x, which is not feature-complete from my point of view now.
This doesn't mean that I wouldn't help out in keeping 1.6.x up to date. But I simply cannot promise to have the necessary time.
1.6.x stable should be maintained by someone who really uses it in the future, to keep an eye on stability, and who has at least the time to keep tings from stalling for months.
Well, I am not keen on doing this, but to get some progress I at least did upload my git tree based on vdr-1.6.0-2 version of git://vdr.gekrumbel.de/vdr.git to github:
http://github.com/zzam/vdr/tree/stable git://github.com/zzam/vdr.git Branch "stable"
It contains up to now only my three patches I already posted in this thread.
Regards Matthias
Well, I don't know if this is the right way and Klaus probably won't like it. Maybe we should wait, until Klaus is back from his holidays, so that he can participate in this discussion.
Regards,
Joachim
Well, I am not keen on doing this, but to get some progress I at least did upload my git tree based on vdr-1.6.0-2 version of git://vdr.gekrumbel.de/vdr.git to github:
http://github.com/zzam/vdr/tree/stable git://github.com/zzam/vdr.git Branch "stable"
It contains up to now only my three patches I already posted in this thread.
Regards Matthias
By the way, I think http://projects.vdr-developer.org/ would a great place for a vdr-1.6.? git tree, as there is already the vdr-1.7.? development git tree.
Hi Joachim,
Am 29.06.2009 09:49, schrieb J.W.:
Well, I am not keen on doing this, but to get some progress I at least did upload my git tree based on vdr-1.6.0-2 version of git://vdr.gekrumbel.de/vdr.git to github:
http://github.com/zzam/vdr/tree/stable git://github.com/zzam/vdr.git Branch "stable"
It contains up to now only my three patches I already posted in this thread.
Regards Matthias
By the way, I think http://projects.vdr-developer.org/ would a great place for a vdr-1.6.? git tree, as there is already the vdr-1.7.? development git tree.
I think you are mixing things up. There is no official vdr-git tree. Those git-trees above were created by contributors or users for the ease of developement.
- jan
Jan Williesjan@willies.info schrieb am 29.06.2009 um 09:52:
Hi Joachim,
Am 29.06.2009 09:49, schrieb J.W.:
Well, I am not keen on doing this, but to get some progress I at least did
upload my git tree based on vdr-1.6.0-2 version of git://vdr.gekrumbel.de/vdr.git to github:
http://github.com/zzam/vdr/tree/stable git://github.com/zzam/vdr.git Branch "stable"
It contains up to now only my three patches I already posted in this thread.
Regards Matthias
By the way, I think http://projects.vdr-developer.org/ would a great place
for a vdr-1.6.? git tree, as there is already the vdr-1.7.? development git tree.
I think you are mixing things up. There is no official vdr-git tree. Those git-trees above were created by contributors or users for the ease of developement.
- jan
No, this was clear to me. But as we discuss to shift the maintaining of the stable vdr version to the users or at leat to someone else than Klaus, I think http://projects.vdr-developer.org/ would be exactly the right place.
Regards,
Joachim
-
J.W. -
Jan Willies -
Joachim Welker
-
Klaus Schmidinger -
Matthias Schwarzott -
Udo Richter -
VDR User -
Ville Skyttä