Jan Stary <h...@stare.cz> writes: > Hi Mans, > > just to clear it up for myself: > https://sourceforge.net/p/sox/code/ci/master/tree/ > is still the ultimate upstream, right?
Yes, that is the most current code. > For reference: there is also > https://github.com/cbagwell/sox (last commit 2015, 4 issues, 2 PRs) > https://github.com/mansr/sox (forked, last 2017, 1PR, no issue tracker) > (and a bunch of nobody's forks of these of course, such as mine). > > These can be ignored when packaging downstream, right? Right, packagers should ignore those. > Are the commits in your GH fork included in the SF git? Some, not all. There are some things there of a more experimental nature that I'm not comfortable making official. > What is currently the right way to report bugs and propose fixes? > Are diffs to this devel list the preffered way? This list or the SF trackers are both fine by me. > The SF issues seem to be untouched for years. Send more time. > Last commit to the SF git is May 2021; where should current fixes > such as https://marc.info/?l=oss-security&m=167546008232629&w=2 be sent? I detest so-called security people and the way they handle their so-called vulnerabilities. If they cared about anything other than their own egos, they'd try to engage constructively with the code authors/maintainers rather than filing CVE entries without asking or understanding, then sending menacing emails in private. > Also, last release was 8 years ago. Piling the patches > is starting to get cubersome when packaging downstream > - are there any plans for a release? I can slap a tag on the git repo and call it a day if that makes people happy. The process for creating the files comprising earlier releases is convoluted and probably broken in a million ways by now. -- Måns Rullgård _______________________________________________ SoX-devel mailing list SoX-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-devel
