Versioning scheme (1 Viewer)

A

Anonymous

Guest
I *think* it might be good if team mediaportal would adopt a new versioning standard, especially since the code is evolving so fast.
My experience: I was running "2605v2" and could use my PVR-350 tv tuner. Then I moved to "14062004" and that rather central feature was broken.

Perhaps you could go with a "stable" release, and a "development" one ? Releases in "development" would go to "stable" when enough success reports are received.

My 2cts.

Keep up with the good work!!
 

Frodo

Retired Team Member
  • Premium Supporter
  • April 22, 2004
    1,518
    121
    51
    The Netherlands
    Home Country
    Netherlands Netherlands
    we talked about this in the MediaPortal team and we came to the following conclusions. We all agreed that your idea about stable and development releases is a good idea. However in reality we have a few problems achieving this. First of all Mediaportal is still in beta stadium. This means, there are no stable releases yet! We're still busy adding all the functionality we think should be in version 1.0.
    Second problem is that at the moment i'm doing 90% of all coding.
    I agree that more & more devs are getting interested and some are contributing patches. However for now it means i dont have any time for maintaining stable & development releases. Maybe when my contributions are starting to get to 60%-70% i have time enough for this.

    Frodo
     
    A

    Anonymous

    Guest
    frodo said:
    .... However for now it means i dont have any time for maintaining stable & development releases. ....

    You're right, of course. I was thinking of something lighter for now.

    Let me use a scenario to explain : some newbie sticks a TV tuner in its PC, grabs the latest-and-greatest mediaportal binary, then comes to this forum saying "nothing works, help". Forum users could then say "well, with your kind of hardware/software, try first making release XXXX work. It is known to work".
    I believe this may help sort out true bugs from misconfiguration problems. There would be no overhead for the dev team which would focus on the current release only.

    That's a mere suggestion. You're the boss, here.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Top Bottom