On 06/09/07, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Surely a 2.x version of cdrecord could break such stability in favour > > > > of a better user experience? > > > > > > 2.0 has been published 5 years ago. > > > > Okay, a "major version release greater than the current release" - I > > wasn't being literal. > > > > Let's suppose then for a moment that you add backwards compatibility > > with cdrw so we can replace it and have better output and user > > defaults for cdrecord. Would that be worthy of a major version > > increment? > > There is a plan to name the next stable release 3.0 and this is expected to be > ready soon (after the BluRay aupport is ready). > > There have been many enhancements since the last "stable" release 2.01. > > The only CLI changes since then has been announced with the 2.0 release 5 > years > ago: > > - Mkisofs reserves -H/-L/-P for a later Posix.1-2001 CLI implementation. > > - cdrecord changed from defaulting to TAO to SAO. The next (after 3.0) > release will make the write mode drive dependent. > > This is a lot more stability than you get from Solaris (see recent tar -/ > discussion). > > If you like to have a cdrw emulation for cdrecord, you are invited to write > it.
Right, I wasn't suggesting that you personally do it. So since 3.0 isn't final yet, would you consider making showing progress output the default? If someone were to contribute a patch for cdrw compatibility, would that be able to be included into 3.0, or is that too soon? Thanks, -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
