[FFmpeg-devel] FOMS 2009 FFmpeg outbrief

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 05:51:24PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Monday, 26 January 2009 at 17:26, Robert Swain wrote:
> > 2009/1/26 M?ns Rullg?rd <mans at mansr.com>:
> > > "Ronald S. Bultje" <rsbultje at gmail.com> writes:
> > >> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:52 AM, M?ns Rullg?rd <mans at mansr.com> wrote:
> > >>> "Ronald S. Bultje" <rsbultje at gmail.com> writes:
> > >>>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 03:06:51PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > >>>>>> What is that method?  A quick search on Google revealed nothing.
> > >>>>> Can anybody shine a light on this?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It is a blind way of releasing weekly or monthly snapshots of the
> > >>>> current trunk with essentially no guaranteed QA&co. The idea is to get
> > >>>> it out so people use it.
> > >>>
> > >>> We have a public svn repository, and we put daily snapshots on the web
> > >>> server.  Isn't that enough?
> > >>
> > >> It addresses the complaint that there's no releases.
> > >
> > > So going from daily snapshots to weekly would make these people shut
> > > up?
> > 
> > This is silly and not productive.
> > 
> > >> However, I honestly don't think making releases will change the
> > >> complaining about ffmpeg at all. It would be so good if they would
> > >> interact in and contribute to this discussion.
> > >
> > > Given that most of the complaints are invalid, e.g. the API hasn't
> > > changed nearly as often as they say, there really isn't much we can
> > > do.  If people want to make up false claims about FFmpeg, and then
> > > complain about them, they'll keep doing that no matter what we do.
> > 
> > The apathetic approach won't encourage progress. I strongly recommend
> > documenting the API changes and how to transition between them,
> > coupled with svn revisions of the version bumps as suggested by
> > Stefano earlier in the thread. This gives some evidence to argue
> > against the claims rather than us saying that it's invalid and them
> > complaining that it's unstable. Eventually this knowledgebase will be
> > popularised if we keep pushing it and the fud will stop.
> 
> I strongly agree. There's still a lot of misconception originating from
> over three years ago being repeated around. I try to correct it whenever
> I come across it being mentioned, but I've been told that it'd be better
> if "the developers" cleared it up prominently on the homepage.
> 
> Regular releases, even if they don't get more testing than SVN HEAD,
> along with clearly documented API changes will surely calm many
> confused minds.

well just make a cronjob of

cp current-snapshot ffmpeg-1.$version-`pwgen -0 | tr '[A-Z]' '[a-z]'`
version=$[version+1]

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Frequently ignored awnser#1 FFmpeg bugs should be sent to our bugtracker. User
questions about the command line tools should be sent to the ffmpeg-user ML.
And questions about how to use libav* should be sent to the libav-user ML.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20090126/34bc6f51/attachment.pgp>