<div dir="ltr">I agree on everything you said. Â I did not intend or expect to have pre-release flac bundled with software, but can understand the dismay at my earlier request.<div><br></div><div>If people think there should be a snapshot version for testing, I'm all for it, especially now that the build system has undergone some changes. Â I found that for some source distros, the removal of autogen.sh's prior features and the removal of config.rpath caused a little headache (easily fixed).</div>
<div><br></div><div>Whether we name it 1.2.2pre or 1.2.2snapshot or something entirely different, is just fine. Â I guess I was making the point that if a new release is in the works, some sort of pre-release to test would be nice.</div>
<div><br></div><div>On a different note, are the test scripts dependent on POSIX environments? Or is there some allowance for bash/korn?<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Max Horn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:max@quendi.de" target="_blank">max@quendi.de</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<div class="im"><br>
On 07.01.2013, at 01:46, Jaren Stangret wrote:<br>
<br>
> I know Erik is busy with maintenance and wants to get a release out soon. Â In the meantime, is it appropriate to tag HEAD as 1.2.1_git and include this in the CLI tools (flac, metaflac, etc)?<br>
><br>
> This would make it easier to allow programs in development to test against git flac and older flac versions. Â For example, sample rates above 48kHz (for ReplayGain) is available in git flac but not 1.2.1.<br>
><br>
> What do you think?<br>
<br>
</div>This sounds like a very bad thing to do, at least in the specific way you described. Because<br>
<br>
(a) this tag name is very bland and potentially misleading. At the very least, it should be called something like 1.2.2pre, 1.2.2snapshot or something like that;<br>
<br>
(b) bundling a pre-release version of some software in the past has sometimes lead to quite some maintenance nightmares for various projects, so I'd be vary. At the very least, make sure to label it very explicitly as a pre-release snapshot that may contain regressions that may not be in the final release. In particular, you probably do not want to encourage distros to package and release it to a general audience, something I've seen happen in other projects in the past, to the dismay of a lot of people.<br>
<br>
That said, providing alpha / beta / rc (release candidate) versions is of course a well-established tradition; and given how many years flac has gone without any release, it might be useful to provide a snapshot (whether one calls it prerelease, alpha, beta, rc or what else does not matter so much) and ask people to test it...<br>
<br>
Just, please, don't call it 1.2.1_git.<br>
<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Max</blockquote></div></div></div></div>