[vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
malcolm.caldwell at cdu.edu.au
Mon Feb 4 06:58:21 CET 2008
My vote is yes.
Release early, Release Often.
Perhaps teletext subtitling is missing, however it was missing from 1.4
and so why not release. (Is there a teletext patch for those users who
must have this functionality?. Or even better, can a teletext plugin be
Also, reading between the lines it would seem that you will release a
new developer version straight away anyway. So what is there to loose?
I don't think you (Klaus) are going to slow down development on
developer versions any time soon.
On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 11:17 +0100, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> There has been some controversy about my recent decision to
> move forward and require the "multiproto" driver for VDR in
> the developer version. It is also currently rather unclear
> whether the current PES recording format can be kept to handle
> HDTV, or whether it would make sense (or even be feasible)
> to switch to TS (as suggested by the people from RMM).
> In order to take the edge of this, I was wondering if it would
> make sense to revoke the switch to the "multiproto" driver and
> go straight towards a stable version 1.6.0 with what is now in
> version 1.5.14. This should satisfy all those who are eagerly awaiting
> a new stable version, without forcing them to make the driver switch
> If we decide to go that way, I would release a version 1.5.15 with
> what could become the new stable, wait until like the end of the month
> to see whether it still needs some minor fixes, and call it 1.6.0 then.
> I know there are still some patches out there that some would expect
> to go into the next stable version, but I actually want to prepare VDR
> for HDTV before looking into these patches.
> So, here's the straw poll:
> Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in
> version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
> Yes or No?
> vdr mailing list
> vdr at linuxtv.org
More information about the vdr