Joern Nettingsmeier wrote: >James Courtier-Dutton wrote: > > ><...> > > >>I think we should have a section on the web site for the different >>applications which support different alsa versions. >> >> >> > >NOOOO. could we please please please annihilate every last little >trace of alsa 0.5.x from that page ? >if that's the stable release, people should be using kernel 1.2 on >an 8086 (as everyone knows, that's the stable release of the >pentium). > >if it has to be, add a very small link to *OBSOLETE* releases and >apps that use them, but please not on the front page. i don't know >how often i have told newbies who had just freshly installed >"stable" to ditch it and start over with 0.9... > >i don't see why jaroslav has sticked to this stable/unstable naming >scheme so long, but probably he had too many other things to do. >patrick, please fix this asap. > >set_rant_mode(off); > >really like the new site. good to see it maintained, and the three >main links for different interest groups are an excellent idea. > >jrn > > > I agree with you. The web site currently only mentions applications compatible with alsa 0.5.x There is no mention of 0.9.x at all in the applications section. If alsa follows ISO9000 release numbering guidelines, the full, non beta release should be called 0.10.x Apparently you should not have beta 0.9.x and then go to full release 0.9.x, apparently one should go to 0.10.x for the first non-beta release, and then only have bug fixes updating 0.10.x. Maybe that is why the linux kernel follows this pattern. Developement 2.3.x, release 2.4.x, development 2.5.x, release 2.6.x
Cheers James _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
