Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
Hi, Without any of this, people will just switch back to totem-xine or other, non-GNOME apps like always, or just continue self-confirming that Linux sucks. Very disappointing after my hard work to make GStreamer not totally suck from an end user's point of view. Basically a total year wasted. As Christian is saying, you're painting a too bleak picture. We've all invested in 0.8, both us as community members and some of us as employees of Fluendo. So have you, both in your spare time as well as paid by Fluendo. None of your work is wasted - all of it is already being used already or waiting to be ported over. Every single element that gets ported to 0.10 gets started from the 0.8 version. Also, let's not overstate the problems in 0.10. It's pretty clear that a lot of formats are easier to fix in 0.10. With Julien's fixing on Totem this weekend as well as some other fixes all over, I've been able to play .avi files, divx files, mpeg-4 video files (apparently a bunch of quicktime fixes went in), and all of them have a lot better and more responsive seeking than the 0.8 versions ever had. Also, 0.10 handles aspect ratio better than 0.8 did - try playing starwars.mkv in the 0.8 and 0.10 version, it's a particularly hairy file to test with. Unless Nathalie Portman is in fact so stick thin that she needs to go see a psychiatrist for her eating disorder, this is just one of the cases where the 0.10 version is simply better than 0.8 All of the file tests I did were done with only the GStreamer modules, no Fluendo-specific modules in there. The only major formats that I have files for that do not work at all yet are .asf and .wmv files. And the only real issues I had with current files were with some .vob files (not all of them) - which also seem a lot better with the freely available Fluendo MPEG demuxer. I hope people will try out the 0.10 version of totem and give us some feedback on what works. If you haven't seen the seeking yet, you should - it's zippy. Scrub that drag handle to and fro. You know you want to ! Happy hacking, Thomas Dave/Dina : future TV today ! - http://www.davedina.org/ -*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*- I've got ladyfingers baby I've got kidgloves baby I got heart -*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*- URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.fm/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 12:44 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: So, here's my proposal: Ship with 0.10. Have everything default to it. Also include 0.8 in the ftp directory, but not used. Include a big old section in the release notes explaining the situation and letting people know that they can recompile totem or compile a second version of totem against 0.8 if they wish. This is good. The only thing I would change is to *not* put 0.8 in the FTP for this release. If the only regressions now are for capitalist-pig-formats(tm), we can put that in the release notes and hope that 0.10 will get support for those soon. Also, let's not create extra work for distros --- if they already packaged 0.10 for the immediate future, we shouldn't force them to create Funny(tm)/Different(tm) 0.8 packages. BIG thanks for the GStreamer team for their quick response with the 0.10 issues. You guys rock :) Mild slap in the wrist to the GStreamer team for regressing some features, too ;) Federico ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
On 1/18/06, Elijah Newren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/15/06, Vincent Untz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, So, the release team messed up and didn't keep close enough tabs on everything, resulting in discovering an issue pretty late. We need to try to find rough consensus in the community. So, here's my understanding of this thread and the alternate one[1] (feel free to correct anything I got wrong; I am not an expert in this area by any means): - There is no good or optimal solution; all choices have multiple drawbacks. :( We still have to pick one, though. - 0.10 is more stable in the doesn't-crash sense, but has a less complete set of plugins and thus cannot handle as many formats - The regressions that exist from the less complete set of plugins are limited to totem - these regressions are for formats we can't ship anyway, though they do limit what can be played in totem for those non-tree-hugging-lefties[2] who would otherwise be able to just download extra plugins. - 0.8 has very little development or maintenance effort and has unfixable problems due to inherently problematic API (causing various crashes, as noted above) - 0.8 and 0.10 can be installed simultaneously, though actively depending on both is a bigger maintenance load that would probably be better spent fixing stuff, and it may also be more annoying to users since preference applets only affect settings for one of the two versions (granted, this will only affect the users who don't want to use the defaults and who are able to understand those dialogs) - Those actively working on gstreamer now recommend 0.10, Ronald (who has done *huge* amounts of gstreamer work in the past and is volunteering to continue to work on 0.8 as his time permits) prefers 0.8 - most distros appear to be moving to 0.10 (JDS, Ubuntu, Fedora; Fedora is shipping both versions, but 'gstreamer' is 0.10 while there's also a 'gstreamer08') - not knowing what we're using is holding up the 2.13.5 release So, here's my proposal: Ship with 0.10. Have everything default to it. Also include 0.8 in the ftp directory, but not used. Include a big old section in the release notes explaining the situation and letting people know that they can recompile totem or compile a second version of totem against 0.8 if they wish. Okay, so this is now official; Gstreamer 0.10 is the plan for Gnome 2.14. There's only one minor change to my proposal above, namely that instead of adding unsed 0.8 tarballs to ftp just refer to them in the important notice in the release notes about this issue (as suggested by jdub, federico, and fcrozat). So, work on the delayed Gnome-2.13.5 release can now proceed. The only problem remaining for that release now is that we need an official gnome-media tarball that uses 0.10 (similar to the one Thomas pointed to at http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2006-January/msg00270.html, but which doesn't require running some transmogrify bash script + autogen before getting to the configure stage. :-) Ronald, Thomas: Can one of you make such a tarball for us and get it up on ftp? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
On 1/19/06, Bob Kashani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The transmogrify script/patch fails during build with the following error: Did you run autogen.sh after running the transmogrify script? Works for me, when also using autogen... ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 13:09 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: On 1/19/06, Bob Kashani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The transmogrify script/patch fails during build with the following error: Did you run autogen.sh after running the transmogrify script? Works for me, when also using autogen... Yes, I did. http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/garnome/desktop/gnome-media/Makefile?rev=1.4view=markup Look at the pre-configure: section. gnome-common-2.12.0 (bootstrap/gnome-common) gstreamer-0.10.2 (desktop/gstreamer) automake-1.9.5 (FC4) autoconf-2.59 (FC4) Bob -- Bob Kashani http://www.gnome.org/projects/garnome http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~bobk/garnome ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 10:44 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: Okay, so this is now official; Gstreamer 0.10 is the plan for Gnome 2.14. There's only one minor change to my proposal above, namely that instead of adding unsed 0.8 tarballs to ftp just refer to them in the important notice in the release notes about this issue (as suggested by jdub, federico, and fcrozat). I'm very disappointed in this. I have done a careful regression analysis, with some major ones visible to end users: subtitles, stream selection, firefox plugin, DVD although for some reason nobody cares about that, plus tons of small format-specific media playback failures that worked previously; more will probably pop up as we start testing this beast for real. For most of those, we've seen that the team cannot guarantee that it will be fixed by the time 2.14.0 is released, and they didn't (maybe it will be fixed, tim will look, or just plain will not be fixed, etc.). Subtitles and stream selection were well-working in previous versions, are free, not encumbered and important. DVD may not be free, but is still critical for non-treehuggers. Without any of this, people will just switch back to totem-xine or other, non-GNOME apps like always, or just continue self-confirming that Linux sucks. Very disappointing after my hard work to make GStreamer not totally suck from an end user's point of view. Basically a total year wasted. Anyway, decision made, I'll accept it nevertheless. Tarball is rolled and uploaded, but I won't be available to fix the regressions, I leave that up to the GStreamer team. Ronald ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 12:52 -0800, Bob Kashani wrote: On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 13:09 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: On 1/19/06, Bob Kashani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The transmogrify script/patch fails during build with the following error: Did you run autogen.sh after running the transmogrify script? Works for me, when also using autogen... Yes, I did. http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/garnome/desktop/gnome-media/Makefile?rev=1.4view=markup Look at the pre-configure: section. gnome-common-2.12.0 (bootstrap/gnome-common) gstreamer-0.10.2 (desktop/gstreamer) automake-1.9.5 (FC4) autoconf-2.59 (FC4) Okay, I'm build gnome-media-2.13.6 now...it fails with a different error: -MT gsr-window.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/gsr-window.Tpo -c -o gsr-window.o gsr-window.c; \ then mv -f .deps/gsr-window.Tpo .deps/gsr-window.Po; else rm -f .deps/gsr-window.Tpo; exit 1; fi In file included from /usr/include/bits/types.h:31, from /usr/include/sys/types.h:31, from gsr-window.c:34: /usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.0.2/include/stddef.h:214: error: syntax error before ‘typedef’ make[5]: *** [gsr-window.o] Error 1 make[5]: Leaving directory `/mnt/hdb1/home/gnome/garnome-2.13.5/desktop/gnome-media/work/main.d/gnome-media-2.13.6/grecord/src' Bob -- Bob Kashani http://www.gnome.org/projects/garnome http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~bobk/garnome ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
On 1/19/06, Bob Kashani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 12:52 -0800, Bob Kashani wrote: On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 13:09 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: On 1/19/06, Bob Kashani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The transmogrify script/patch fails during build with the following error: Did you run autogen.sh after running the transmogrify script? Works for me, when also using autogen... Yes, I did. http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/garnome/desktop/gnome-media/Makefile?rev=1.4view=markup Look at the pre-configure: section. gnome-common-2.12.0 (bootstrap/gnome-common) gstreamer-0.10.2 (desktop/gstreamer) automake-1.9.5 (FC4) autoconf-2.59 (FC4) Okay, I'm build gnome-media-2.13.6 now...it fails with a different error: -MT gsr-window.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/gsr-window.Tpo -c -o gsr-window.o gsr-window.c; \ then mv -f .deps/gsr-window.Tpo .deps/gsr-window.Po; else rm -f .deps/gsr-window.Tpo; exit 1; fi In file included from /usr/include/bits/types.h:31, from /usr/include/sys/types.h:31, from gsr-window.c:34: /usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.0.2/include/stddef.h:214: error: syntax error before 'typedef' make[5]: *** [gsr-window.o] Error 1 make[5]: Leaving directory `/mnt/hdb1/home/gnome/garnome-2.13.5/desktop/gnome-media/work/main.d/gnome-media-2.13.6/grecord/src' Appears to be an errant 'm' character at the very beginning of gnome-media-2.13.6/grecord/src/gsr-window.c... any chance we could get an updated tarball with that fixed? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
On 1/19/06, Elijah Newren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Appears to be an errant 'm' character at the very beginning of gnome-media-2.13.6/grecord/src/gsr-window.c... any chance we could get an updated tarball with that fixed? I hope I didn't step on any toes or do anything inappropriate but since I'd really like to get the release out, I went ahead and rolled a 2.13.7 tarball with just this fix. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 16:14 -0500, Luis Villa wrote: JWZ is an ass, and has been for a long time. If forced to take the admittedly unpleasant choice between overwhelming maintainers so that they never look at bugzilla at all, or incorrectly closing bugs which might be reopened later, we should *always* choose the second option. In defense of asses, JWZ's bug reports tend to be detailed and he'll happily follow up on them if you ask nicely. I know because I fixed some of them. His tantrum was on our extremely irresponsible transition from 1.x to 2.0, where no one bothered to see if there were regressions, we didn't provide a migration path for user's settings, we didn't write migration documents for all the APIs that got replaced, and we just shoved everything under the rug. The bugsquad (did it exist then?) was probably not as good as it is now, etc. etc., but we cannot say uh, I guess it may be fixed now every time we switch versions. This includes minor and micro versions. If a bug has good info on how to reproduce a crash, and the code has changed so much that the provided stack trace is not relevant anymore, it is up to the maintainer to attempt to reproduce the crash with the original instructions, and close the bug if it is irreproducible. If a bug has only a stack trace and no info on how to reproduce it, feel free to mark it NEEDINFO immediately, or even INCOMPLETE/INVALID. Speaking of GStreamer... We should probably start to become stricter on API/ABI stability for the desktop suite, not only the platform suite. Users only see our desktop, never the platform; if the desktop breaks because a desktop-only library broke things, users will think that GNOME sucks as a whole. I'm thinking that we need to change our release model a bit, so that we have a user branch and a developer/experimental branch at all times, and it is ONLY the ongoing user branch that we ship to distros and thus users. Federico ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
On 1/15/06, Vincent Untz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, So, the release team messed up and didn't keep close enough tabs on everything, resulting in discovering an issue pretty late. We need to try to find rough consensus in the community. So, here's my understanding of this thread and the alternate one[1] (feel free to correct anything I got wrong; I am not an expert in this area by any means): - There is no good or optimal solution; all choices have multiple drawbacks. :( We still have to pick one, though. - 0.10 is more stable in the doesn't-crash sense, but has a less complete set of plugins and thus cannot handle as many formats - The regressions that exist from the less complete set of plugins are limited to totem - these regressions are for formats we can't ship anyway, though they do limit what can be played in totem for those non-tree-hugging-lefties[2] who would otherwise be able to just download extra plugins. - 0.8 has very little development or maintenance effort and has unfixable problems due to inherently problematic API (causing various crashes, as noted above) - 0.8 and 0.10 can be installed simultaneously, though actively depending on both is a bigger maintenance load that would probably be better spent fixing stuff, and it may also be more annoying to users since preference applets only affect settings for one of the two versions (granted, this will only affect the users who don't want to use the defaults and who are able to understand those dialogs) - Those actively working on gstreamer now recommend 0.10, Ronald (who has done *huge* amounts of gstreamer work in the past and is volunteering to continue to work on 0.8 as his time permits) prefers 0.8 - most distros appear to be moving to 0.10 (JDS, Ubuntu, Fedora; Fedora is shipping both versions, but 'gstreamer' is 0.10 while there's also a 'gstreamer08') - not knowing what we're using is holding up the 2.13.5 release So, here's my proposal: Ship with 0.10. Have everything default to it. Also include 0.8 in the ftp directory, but not used. Include a big old section in the release notes explaining the situation and letting people know that they can recompile totem or compile a second version of totem against 0.8 if they wish. [1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/release-team/2006-January/msg00038.html. [2] http://thomas.apestaart.org/log/, 2006-1-16 posting (couldn't find a direct link, sorry) ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 00:22 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: Is GNOME 2.10 maintained? The way things are, that's almost equivalent to asking whether any distributions with long-running support commitments ever shipped GNOME 2.10. We already discussed this once: http://primates.ximian.com/~federico/news-2005-07.html#21 We need to mock, ridicule, and ostracise distributions which don't commit their patches for non-HEAD versions of GNOME to CVS. We need to kill the need for a black market of patches among distros. Federico ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 14:06 -0500, Luis Villa wrote: His tantrum was on our extremely irresponsible transition from 1.x to 2.0, where no one bothered to see if there were regressions, we didn't provide a migration path for user's settings, we didn't write migration documents for all the APIs that got replaced, and we just shoved everything under the rug. No, that's not what his tantrum was about: http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html Since you want to nitpick: This is, I think, the most common way for my bug reports to open source software projects to ever become closed. I report bugs; they go unread for a year, sometimes two; and then (surprise!) that module is rewritten from scratch -- and the new maintainer can't be bothered to check whether his new version has actually solved any of the known problems that existed in the previous version. Seems to match my no one bothered to see if there were regressions, and we just shoved everything under the rug. I just spiced it up a little. Tra la la. Federico ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
quote who=Federico Mena Quintero We need to mock, ridicule, and ostracise distributions which don't commit their patches for non-HEAD versions of GNOME to CVS. I will get the rubber chicken. A while back, someone mentioned they had a script that polled for patches in various distro packages of GNOME, and could alert us to new ones... Anyone remember who that was? - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2006: Dunedin, New Zealand http://linux.conf.au/ On Tuesday I saw Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon with Zack and two ladies whom I presume are gracious. - Seth Schoen ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
ons, 18,.01.2006 kl. 12.44 -0700, skrev Elijah Newren: On 1/15/06, Vincent Untz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, So, the release team messed up and didn't keep close enough tabs on everything, resulting in discovering an issue pretty late. We need to try to find rough consensus in the community. So, here's my understanding of this thread and the alternate one[1] (feel free to correct anything I got wrong; I am not an expert in this area by any means): - There is no good or optimal solution; all choices have multiple drawbacks. :( We still have to pick one, though. - 0.10 is more stable in the doesn't-crash sense, but has a less complete set of plugins and thus cannot handle as many formats - The regressions that exist from the less complete set of plugins are limited to totem - these regressions are for formats we can't ship anyway, though they do limit what can be played in totem for those non-tree-hugging-lefties[2] who would otherwise be able to just download extra plugins. - 0.8 has very little development or maintenance effort and has unfixable problems due to inherently problematic API (causing various crashes, as noted above) - 0.8 and 0.10 can be installed simultaneously, though actively depending on both is a bigger maintenance load that would probably be better spent fixing stuff, and it may also be more annoying to users since preference applets only affect settings for one of the two versions (granted, this will only affect the users who don't want to use the defaults and who are able to understand those dialogs) - Those actively working on gstreamer now recommend 0.10, Ronald (who has done *huge* amounts of gstreamer work in the past and is volunteering to continue to work on 0.8 as his time permits) prefers 0.8 - most distros appear to be moving to 0.10 (JDS, Ubuntu, Fedora; Fedora is shipping both versions, but 'gstreamer' is 0.10 while there's also a 'gstreamer08') - not knowing what we're using is holding up the 2.13.5 release So, here's my proposal: Ship with 0.10. Have everything default to it. Also include 0.8 in the ftp directory, but not used. Include a big old section in the release notes explaining the situation and letting people know that they can recompile totem or compile a second version of totem against 0.8 if they wish. I'm with you on all points. I would like to see the GStreamer hackers fix as many of the known issues ASAP though. Not that I expect them to get to them all, but it would be nice to make stability and feature parity priority #1 in the remaining time before the final release. I know you can do it! :-) Cheers Kjartan ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
Hi Vincent, On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 22:42 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: Well, the question is: is GStreamer 0.8 totally unmaintained? Yup. I had understood that Ronald was planning to make a new release with some fixes, so that's why I proposed to not close the bugs. I don't know what Ronald's plans are. Regards, -- Andy Wingo http://wingolog.org/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
Le mardi 17 janvier 2006 à 10:48 +0100, Andy Wingo a écrit : Hi Vincent, On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 22:42 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: Well, the question is: is GStreamer 0.8 totally unmaintained? Yup. Thanks for all the people running deployed software running Gstreamer 0.8 :( -- Frederic Crozat [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mandriva ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
quote who=Frederic Crozat Le mardi 17 janvier 2006 à 10:48 +0100, Andy Wingo a écrit : Hi Vincent, On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 22:42 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: Well, the question is: is GStreamer 0.8 totally unmaintained? Yup. Thanks for all the people running deployed software running Gstreamer 0.8 :( Is GNOME 2.10 maintained? - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2006: Dunedin, New Zealand http://linux.conf.au/ The name Lego came from two Danish words 'leg godt', meaning 'play well'. It also means 'I put together' in Latin. - BBC News, 2005 ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 08:00 -0500, Frederic Crozat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le mardi 17 janvier 2006 10:48 +0100, Andy Wingo a crit : On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 22:42 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: Well, the question is: is GStreamer 0.8 totally unmaintained? Yup. Thanks for all the people running deployed software running Gstreamer 0.8 :( Didn't I just say I'd do a maintainance release in a few weeks (hopefully for beta1)? If there's crasher bugs, I'll try to include fixes for those. If there's patches attached to bugs, I'll do the same thing (send me an email to be sure they get applied, I don't watch bugzilla as closely as I used to). It doesn't have *Fluendo's* interest. That's totally not the same thing, and very understandable. Cheers, Ronald ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
ons, 18,.01.2006 kl. 00.22 +1100, skrev Jeff Waugh: quote who=Frederic Crozat Le mardi 17 janvier 2006 à 10:48 +0100, Andy Wingo a écrit : Hi Vincent, On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 22:42 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: Well, the question is: is GStreamer 0.8 totally unmaintained? Yup. Thanks for all the people running deployed software running Gstreamer 0.8 :( Is GNOME 2.10 maintained? Perhaps the even more relevant analogy is that by the time GNOME 2.14 is out GNOME 2.12.x won't be maintained if you interpret it like this. Sure, if there are critical things that pop up people will commit the fixes to the stable branches and maybe even do a release, but that's about it from my experience. Maintenance happens on *one* stable branch at the time and that's more than enough work to keep us busy. Cheers Kjartan ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
Le mercredi 18 janvier 2006 à 00:22 +1100, Jeff Waugh a écrit : quote who=Frederic Crozat Le mardi 17 janvier 2006 à 10:48 +0100, Andy Wingo a écrit : Hi Vincent, On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 22:42 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: Well, the question is: is GStreamer 0.8 totally unmaintained? Yup. Thanks for all the people running deployed software running Gstreamer 0.8 :( Is GNOME 2.10 maintained? If you want to do an analogy, you should ask : is GNOME 2.12 maintained ? ;) Moreover, most bug fixes from 2.12 can be backported to 2.10 when relevant. After discussing on irc, it seems not everybody has the same definition of unmaintained. For me, unmaintained means dead, ie no more commit on CVS, nothing. For Christian (and probably other), unmaintained means not doing real works on it. -- Frederic Crozat [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mandriva ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
Hi, Is GNOME 2.10 maintained? If you want to do an analogy, you should ask : is GNOME 2.12 maintained ? ;) No - since GNOME 2.14 is not out yet. The question is - is GNOME maintaining more than one stable branch at any point ? After discussing on irc, it seems not everybody has the same definition of unmaintained. For me, unmaintained means dead, ie no more commit on CVS, nothing. I think in this particular case, for me it means something roughly like: - important security fixes will get applied and released - crasher bugs that have patches and are not invasive will get applied - I make an effort to not destabilize the latest released version on this branch by applying random patches from wherever without proper testing - I'm not actively looking for bugs to fix in it - big feature additions, addition of plug-ins, ... do not get applied I think that's a fair compromise between work involved, viability of that branch, and expectations from users of that version. I am assuming that Ronald, by maintaining, in this case, means he might try and fix bugs on his own. In practice, given that he's busy, I would expect him to either be really annoyed by it personally or have a patch in bugzilla to work from. My only worry when it comes to 0.8 is possible destabilization of a highly evolved code base that is about as good as it can possibly get at this point. Thomas Dave/Dina : future TV today ! - http://www.davedina.org/ -*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*- Kiss me please kiss me Kiss me out of desire baby not consolation Oh you know it makes me so angry cause I know that in time I'll only make you cry -*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*- URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.fm/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
Vincent/Glynn: On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 07:28 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: + quite a few people were assuming that 0.10 was the plan for 2.14 and were totally unaware that 0.8 had even been on the plan. Ubuntu and Fedora development versions (i.e. the distros that Elijah checked or found out about) seem to both be headed towards 0.10. We're looking like GNOME 2.14 with GStreamer 0.10 is going to be the most likely candidate for the next version of JDS too, FWIW - although the community should do what's right for the community, since our release is still a way off so that we can factor in porting if necessary. Yes, I think it is most likely that we will go with GStreamer 0.10 with Sun GNOME 2.12 builds. On Solaris, we only ship a few applications that use GStreamer (totem, gnome-media and the mixer applet). All of these seem to be pretty much working with GStreamer 0.10 on Solaris, so I think that we will treat any regressions we find as bugs. Most of the regressions (such as libparanoia not yet working) don't matter to us since libparanoia doesn't work on Solaris anyway. And the benefits of 0.10 (such as the MP3 decoder plugin that does not break GPL licensing) really are big wins. Since, as Glynn says, our release is a ways off, we also just have more time to deal with any regressions we find. Note that to get gnome-media working with GStreamer 0.10 you have to use the latest gnome-media release and follow the steps in the README (basically run the script it points you towards). To get the mixer applet working, you have to build the mixer applet with the bugzilla patch in #326285. Brian ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
Hey, On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 07:28 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: + quite a few people were assuming that 0.10 was the plan for 2.14 and were totally unaware that 0.8 had even been on the plan. Ubuntu and Fedora development versions (i.e. the distros that Elijah checked or found out about) seem to both be headed towards 0.10. We're looking like GNOME 2.14 with GStreamer 0.10 is going to be the most likely candidate for the next version of JDS too, FWIW - although the community should do what's right for the community, since our release is still a way off so that we can factor in porting if necessary. Glynn ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
Hi, Well Tim is working on just fixing Totem and gnome-media for 0.10 and will continue to do so for the next months at the minimum. Up to now his progress have been slow due to having to port over plugins for 0.8 as part of his porting effort, but now that this is mostly taken care of he can focus more fully on polishing and hooking up the few remaining features in Totem and gnome-media. I feel confident we will close the remaining regressions over the next month apart from some of the more obscure stuff (like computer game movie formats). There are also new stuff that will work with 0.10 which have never worked with 0.8 like Real format support and much improved MMS/WMA netradio support. To me the big issue is not comparing the 0.8 vs 0.10 bug count, not that there is more bugs currently with 0.10, just different (and easier to fix), but which branch will see significant improvements and bugfixes going forward. 0.8 is not that branch and if we don't switch now, GNOME is stuck with a mostly dead 0.8 branch for the next 6-9 months. Currently the only thing happening in 0.8 is the applying of a few submitted patches, but no work is being done on the big hard issues, like improving the threading problems which causes all the random crashes people experience with 0.8 Totem for instance. Christian On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 07:34 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: Le lundi 16 janvier 2006 à 07:28 +0100, Vincent Untz a écrit : It is possible to have both 0.8 and 0.10 installed at the same time, so the decision could be to ship both and have modules use 0.10 if it works for them and otherwise use 0.8. Or maybe support both with a configure switch. However, either of these would mean taking a lot of developer time that would seem much better spent fixing a single version. It is somewhat unfortunate, but the lateness of the issue will probably force some difficulty in the schedule. We may need to shove feature/module freeze effectively back a week (but not doing the same for subsequent dates) or being lenient with GStreamer-related freeze break requests at first to get this straightened out. My personal opinion is that we should keep the schedule as it is right now, but accept some changes related to GStreamer so we can try to have 0.10 for 2.14. If it doesn't work well enough (one month before the big .0 release, eg), then we'll be able to go back to 0.8. Vincent ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 11:59 +0100, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote: Hi, Well Tim is working on just fixing Totem and gnome-media for 0.10 and will continue to do so for the next months at the minimum. Up to now his progress have been slow due to having to port over plugins for 0.8 as part of his porting effort, but now that this is mostly taken care of he can focus more fully on polishing and hooking up the few remaining features in Totem and gnome-media. I feel confident we will close the remaining regressions over the next month apart from some of the more obscure stuff (like computer game movie formats). There are also new stuff that will work with 0.10 which have never worked with 0.8 like Real format support and much improved MMS/WMA netradio support. The problem is that the stuff that used to work doesn't anymore. And there are over 80 opened bugs against the Totem GStreamer backend, most of them should be either fixed in Totem, reassigned to GStreamer, or put on NEEDINFO (against 20 for the xine-lib backend). To me the big issue is not comparing the 0.8 vs 0.10 bug count, not that there is more bugs currently with 0.10, just different (and easier to fix), but which branch will see significant improvements and bugfixes going forward. 0.8 is not that branch and if we don't switch now, GNOME is stuck with a mostly dead 0.8 branch for the next 6-9 months. Currently the only thing happening in 0.8 is the applying of a few submitted patches, but no work is being done on the big hard issues, like improving the threading problems which causes all the random crashes people experience with 0.8 Totem for instance. Ronald filed about 10 GStreamer backend bugs in Totem. The progress on those will be a good way to check on the progress for 2.14. --- Bastien Nocera [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm going to find a new Conan. Arnie's got his work cut out saving California. -- John Millius ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 11:27 +, Bastien Nocera wrote: The problem is that the stuff that used to work doesn't anymore. Well stuff that used to cause crashes in 0.8 doesn't anymore, so it goes both ways. And there are over 80 opened bugs against the Totem GStreamer backend, most of them should be either fixed in Totem, reassigned to GStreamer, or put on NEEDINFO (against 20 for the xine-lib backend). Of those 80 most are from the 0.8 days. And they illustrate the problem with nobody working on the 0.8 stuff anymore. To me the big issue is not comparing the 0.8 vs 0.10 bug count, not that there is more bugs currently with 0.10, just different (and easier to fix), but which branch will see significant improvements and bugfixes going forward. 0.8 is not that branch and if we don't switch now, GNOME is stuck with a mostly dead 0.8 branch for the next 6-9 months. Currently the only thing happening in 0.8 is the applying of a few submitted patches, but no work is being done on the big hard issues, like improving the threading problems which causes all the random crashes people experience with 0.8 Totem for instance. Ronald filed about 10 GStreamer backend bugs in Totem. The progress on those will be a good way to check on the progress for 2.14. Sure, Tim will be working on fixing these issues. Christian ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
Hi Christian, Le lundi 16 janvier 2006 à 14:45 +0100, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller a écrit : And there are over 80 opened bugs against the Totem GStreamer backend, most of them should be either fixed in Totem, reassigned to GStreamer, or put on NEEDINFO (against 20 for the xine-lib backend). Of those 80 most are from the 0.8 days. And they illustrate the problem with nobody working on the 0.8 stuff anymore. So, can we hope that some of you (Tim?) will triage those bugs soon? Because for me, it doesn't illustrate the problem that nobody's working on 0.8 but it does illustrate that nobody's triaging totem-gstreamer bugs. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
Hi, Of those 80 most are from the 0.8 days. And they illustrate the problem with nobody working on the 0.8 stuff anymore. So, can we hope that some of you (Tim?) Let's not shovel too much dirt on Tim yet :) We're already passing him all of the hot potatoes. Tim's focusing on the 0.10 bits. will triage those bugs soon? Because for me, it doesn't illustrate the problem that nobody's working on 0.8 but it does illustrate that nobody's triaging totem-gstreamer bugs. They could use basic triaging in the sense that someone should go through them and see what applies to the 0.10 version. I think that you'd find most GStreamer bug triagers to mark them as obsolete if they apply only to the 0.8 backend though, and I don't know if that's what you want in this case. I'm sure that for this kind of triaging you'll easily find some volunteers in the GStreamr camp :) What do you suggest ? Thomas Dave/Dina : future TV today ! - http://www.davedina.org/ -*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*- I go through all of this before you wake up So I can feel happier to be safe up here with you -*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*- URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.fm/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
Le lundi 16 janvier 2006 à 07:34 +0100, Vincent Untz a écrit : Le lundi 16 janvier 2006 à 07:28 +0100, Vincent Untz a écrit : It is possible to have both 0.8 and 0.10 installed at the same time, so the decision could be to ship both and have modules use 0.10 if it works for them and otherwise use 0.8. Or maybe support both with a configure switch. However, either of these would mean taking a lot of developer time that would seem much better spent fixing a single version. It is somewhat unfortunate, but the lateness of the issue will probably force some difficulty in the schedule. We may need to shove feature/module freeze effectively back a week (but not doing the same for subsequent dates) or being lenient with GStreamer-related freeze break requests at first to get this straightened out. My personal opinion is that we should keep the schedule as it is right now, but accept some changes related to GStreamer so we can try to have 0.10 for 2.14. If it doesn't work well enough (one month before the big .0 release, eg), then we'll be able to go back to 0.8. Answering myself to try to move the discussion here (instead of the thread on release-team). Here's a more detailed plan I propose: + keep compatibility with both 0.8 and 0.10 in all of our modules + push to fix regressions in 0.10 + come back in ~1 month (on February 13th, when tarballs for 2.14.0 Beta 2 are due) and look at what has been fixed and see if the worst bugs reported against our modules are for GStreamer 0.8 or GStreamer 0.10. I'm not sure, but I don't think there are features in the various modules using GStreamer that *require* 0.10, are there? Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
Le lundi 16 janvier 2006 à 21:07 +0100, Thomas Vander Stichele a écrit : Hi, Of those 80 most are from the 0.8 days. And they illustrate the problem with nobody working on the 0.8 stuff anymore. So, can we hope that some of you (Tim?) Let's not shovel too much dirt on Tim yet :) We're already passing him all of the hot potatoes. Tim's focusing on the 0.10 bits. I'm sad: you gave the impression that Tim was a machine who could do everything we want him to do ;-) will triage those bugs soon? Because for me, it doesn't illustrate the problem that nobody's working on 0.8 but it does illustrate that nobody's triaging totem-gstreamer bugs. They could use basic triaging in the sense that someone should go through them and see what applies to the 0.10 version. I think that you'd find most GStreamer bug triagers to mark them as obsolete if they apply only to the 0.8 backend though, and I don't know if that's what you want in this case. I don't think marking them as obsolete is okay right now. I'd use the status whiteboard so we can easily know they're only happening with the 0.8 backend. (Or maybe create a gstreamer0.8 component, but this is ugly). Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 21:04 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: And there are over 80 opened bugs against the Totem GStreamer backend, most of them should be either fixed in Totem, reassigned to GStreamer, or put on NEEDINFO (against 20 for the xine-lib backend). Of those 80 most are from the 0.8 days. And they illustrate the problem with nobody working on the 0.8 stuff anymore. So, can we hope that some of you (Tim?) will triage those bugs soon? Because for me, it doesn't illustrate the problem that nobody's working on 0.8 but it does illustrate that nobody's triaging totem-gstreamer bugs. It probably illustrates both. I have been asked to keep 0.8 backend bugs that are theoretically fixable in 0.8 open, and everything is theoretically fixable. Personally, I have neither time nor much interest in working on 0.8 issues at this point. I do watch bugzilla for 0.10 issues and triage them and aim to resolve them, so it's not so that gstreamer backend bugs aren't triaged in general. I'd be happy to help triage old 0.8 bugs once it's agreed that 0.10 is the way forward though. Cheers -Tim ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
Hi Vincent, So the dual 0.8/0.10 thing for gnome-media has been discussed and our opinion was that we didn't want Tim to waste time working on a dual backend system when he already had a lot on his plate. Personally I think we should make 2.13 releases using 0.10. If the release team decide that they are worse than the 0.8 versions then the release team should just decide to use latest 2.12 release for 2.14 instead. If anyone ends up actually doing any work on the 0.8 version they are of course free to make new releases from the 2.12 branch. Christian Answering myself to try to move the discussion here (instead of the thread on release-team). Here's a more detailed plan I propose: + keep compatibility with both 0.8 and 0.10 in all of our modules + push to fix regressions in 0.10 + come back in ~1 month (on February 13th, when tarballs for 2.14.0 Beta 2 are due) and look at what has been fixed and see if the worst bugs reported against our modules are for GStreamer 0.8 or GStreamer 0.10. I'm not sure, but I don't think there are features in the various modules using GStreamer that *require* 0.10, are there? Vincent ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
They could use basic triaging in the sense that someone should go through them and see what applies to the 0.10 version. I think that you'd find most GStreamer bug triagers to mark them as obsolete if they apply only to the 0.8 backend though, and I don't know if that's what you want in this case. I don't think marking them as obsolete is okay right now. I'd use the status whiteboard so we can easily know they're only happening with the 0.8 backend. (Or maybe create a gstreamer0.8 component, but this is ugly). I'd find it useful if the short bug descriptions were prefixed with a [0.8] or [0.10] to indicate which backend they apply to (if Bastien doesn't object on aesthetical grounds). Cheers -Tim ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
On 1/16/06, Vincent Untz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They could use basic triaging in the sense that someone should go through them and see what applies to the 0.10 version. I think that you'd find most GStreamer bug triagers to mark them as obsolete if they apply only to the 0.8 backend though, and I don't know if that's what you want in this case. I don't think marking them as obsolete is okay right now. I'd use the status whiteboard so we can easily know they're only happening with the 0.8 backend. (Or maybe create a gstreamer0.8 component, but this is ugly). See http://blogs.gnome.org/view/newren/2005/09/30/0 for more details where I'm coming from, but I'm basically going to disagree with Vincent here -- I think it should be perfectly fine to mark all those bugs as obsolete and tell the reporter they are free to reopen if they experience the same issue under 0.10. I think which versions are considered obsolete ought to be up to the maintainers (though we'd appreciate a note in the product specific guidelines, linked to from the browse page in bugzilla, so that triagers can help). There is a tradeoff that needs to be made and we don't want to be too agressive just closing out 'old' bugs, but I think we tend to err far on the side off keeping too many bugs open that just aren't helpful. Just my $0.02. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
Le lundi 16 janvier 2006 à 21:44 +0100, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller a écrit : Hi Vincent, So the dual 0.8/0.10 thing for gnome-media has been discussed and our opinion was that we didn't want Tim to waste time working on a dual backend system when he already had a lot on his plate. Personally I think we should make 2.13 releases using 0.10. If the release team decide that they are worse than the 0.8 versions then the release team should just decide to use latest 2.12 release for 2.14 instead. If anyone ends up actually doing any work on the 0.8 version they are of course free to make new releases from the 2.12 branch. Well, if all other changes that have been done/will be done in 2.13 are only fixes that can go in 2.12, then I guess it's okay. Thomas also proposed to add a patch for GStreamer 0.10 support in CVS and a configure switch that would apply the patch. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
On 1/16/06, Elijah Newren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/16/06, Vincent Untz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They could use basic triaging in the sense that someone should go through them and see what applies to the 0.10 version. I think that you'd find most GStreamer bug triagers to mark them as obsolete if they apply only to the 0.8 backend though, and I don't know if that's what you want in this case. I don't think marking them as obsolete is okay right now. I'd use the status whiteboard so we can easily know they're only happening with the 0.8 backend. (Or maybe create a gstreamer0.8 component, but this is ugly). See http://blogs.gnome.org/view/newren/2005/09/30/0 for more details where I'm coming from, but I'm basically going to disagree with Vincent here -- I think it should be perfectly fine to mark all those bugs as obsolete and tell the reporter they are free to reopen if they experience the same issue under 0.10. I think which versions are considered obsolete ought to be up to the maintainers (though we'd appreciate a note in the product specific guidelines, linked to from the browse page in bugzilla, so that triagers can help). There is a tradeoff that needs to be made and we don't want to be too agressive just closing out 'old' bugs, but I think we tend to err far on the side off keeping too many bugs open that just aren't helpful. This is basically the case we created obsolete for (as opposed to wontfix) so while it isn't perfect, I'm generally in agreement with Elijah here. Luis ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
On 1/16/06, Elijah Newren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See http://blogs.gnome.org/view/newren/2005/09/30/0 for more details where I'm coming from, but I'm basically going to disagree with Vincent here -- I think it should be perfectly fine to mark all those bugs as obsolete and tell the reporter they are free to reopen if they experience the same issue under 0.10. I think which versions are considered obsolete ought to be up to the maintainers (though we'd appreciate a note in the product specific guidelines, linked to from the browse page in bugzilla, so that triagers can help). There is a tradeoff that needs to be made and we don't want to be too agressive just closing out 'old' bugs, but I think we tend to err far on the side off keeping too many bugs open that just aren't helpful. Sorry, short addendum -- Those who do take a slightly more aggressive approach than we've done previously, though, will want to come up with a good explanation to use in the bug reports so that they don't get skewered like the bugsquad did by JWZ when we closed out Gnome 1.x bugs. Fear of such backlash is probably one of the main reasons we didn't continue any aggressiveness at closing out old more-likely-to-be-useless-than-not bugs, though I think our lack of backbone (and I'm probably more to blame than anyone) has slowed us down. Maybe we could hide behind 'Mozilla's doing it too' now, as pointed out in my blog post. ;-) Anyway, enough of my rambling... ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
Le lundi 16 janvier 2006 à 13:52 -0700, Elijah Newren a écrit : On 1/16/06, Vincent Untz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They could use basic triaging in the sense that someone should go through them and see what applies to the 0.10 version. I think that you'd find most GStreamer bug triagers to mark them as obsolete if they apply only to the 0.8 backend though, and I don't know if that's what you want in this case. I don't think marking them as obsolete is okay right now. I'd use the status whiteboard so we can easily know they're only happening with the 0.8 backend. (Or maybe create a gstreamer0.8 component, but this is ugly). See http://blogs.gnome.org/view/newren/2005/09/30/0 for more details where I'm coming from, but I'm basically going to disagree with Vincent here -- I think it should be perfectly fine to mark all those bugs as obsolete and tell the reporter they are free to reopen if they experience the same issue under 0.10. I think which versions are considered obsolete ought to be up to the maintainers (though we'd appreciate a note in the product specific guidelines, linked to from the browse page in bugzilla, so that triagers can help). There is a tradeoff that needs to be made and we don't want to be too agressive just closing out 'old' bugs, but I think we tend to err far on the side off keeping too many bugs open that just aren't helpful. Well, the question is: is GStreamer 0.8 totally unmaintained? I had understood that Ronald was planning to make a new release with some fixes, so that's why I proposed to not close the bugs. But I'm of course okay to close the bugs if Ronald don't need them... Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
Hi, Well, if all other changes that have been done/will be done in 2.13 are only fixes that can go in 2.12, then I guess it's okay. Thomas also proposed to add a patch for GStreamer 0.10 support in CVS and a configure switch that would apply the patch. My proposal was slightly different; I've added a command to turn the tarball into a 0.10-based one. After this command, you run autogen.sh, and then make. This is because the patch touches the build. I put the tarball that is the result of this at http://thomas.apestaart.org/download/tmp/gnome-media-2.13.0.tar.gz I leave it to Ronald/release team to pick it up for tonight's release if they're ok with it - Ronald seemed ok with it on IRC but I want to leave it to someone else to make sure I don't step on any toes... Night, Thomas Dave/Dina : future TV today ! - http://www.davedina.org/ -*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*- If that's the way it is then that's the way it is -*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*- URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.fm/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GStreamer version for 2.14
Le lundi 16 janvier 2006 à 07:28 +0100, Vincent Untz a écrit : It is possible to have both 0.8 and 0.10 installed at the same time, so the decision could be to ship both and have modules use 0.10 if it works for them and otherwise use 0.8. Or maybe support both with a configure switch. However, either of these would mean taking a lot of developer time that would seem much better spent fixing a single version. It is somewhat unfortunate, but the lateness of the issue will probably force some difficulty in the schedule. We may need to shove feature/module freeze effectively back a week (but not doing the same for subsequent dates) or being lenient with GStreamer-related freeze break requests at first to get this straightened out. My personal opinion is that we should keep the schedule as it is right now, but accept some changes related to GStreamer so we can try to have 0.10 for 2.14. If it doesn't work well enough (one month before the big .0 release, eg), then we'll be able to go back to 0.8. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
