Re: GStreamer regression analysis [was: GNOME and GStreamer]

On 1/16/06, Thomas Vander Stichele <thomas apestaart org> wrote:
> Hi,
> > > Compare to the GTK+ 2.0 situation - very few people started porting
> > > applications to GTK+ 2.0 when it first came out.  Does that make it a
> > > development branch ? The difference lies in the pluggability of
> > > GStreamer - which you should view separate from the core.
> > >
> > > I completely agree that it is a fair reason for not choosing to use
> > > GStreamer 0.10 - I just wanted to point out the difference.
> >
> > Unfortunately, gstreamer *is* a coherent whole, in the sense that
> > GNOME doesn't get to choose 'hey, lets use the gstreamer 0.10 core,
> > but the 0.8 codecs!'
> Of course, that's the point I agree with.  I'm just saying that this is
> not a fair reason to call all of GStreamer 0.10 a development series.
> The core is stable, as are the base plugins.  Additions can be made, as
> can new plugins.  How is this different from GTK+ 2 ? How long did it
> take to get an even halfway decent file selector in ?

Sadly, the gtk2 file selector wasn't a regression from stock gtk1-
only from the hack that ximian patched in :)

> The only
> difference is that us still being a 0.whatever is precisely because we
> haven't commited to a 1.whatever API stability yet.
> That's the point I was making - you don't necessarily need all the
> features put back in into what you call a stable release.  On the
> contrary - you need that pivotal point of doing a stable release of
> something to generate wider interest and effort :)

Yeah, I see what you mean. Maybe what I should be saying is 'gstreamer
core is 0.10 quality but certain gstreamer plugins still appear to be
0.9, which means that for GNOME's purposes gstreamer is 0.9, but YMMV,
and by all means, everyone should be targeting 0.10 for future
development.' Is that most fair?

> (Of course, from GNOME's point of view, you can turn this around easily
> and say "all the more reason for GNOME not to consider regressing on
> features inside a minor release series)
> > Thanks for being reasonable and not taking this as a personal attack,
> > as some people on both sides of this thread seem to be doing. You know
> > I think you guys are (overall) doing great work and moving free
> > software and free formats forward, even if I think sometimes you pay
> > too little attention to users ;)
> We try.  But hey - weren't you that guy with that company that promised
> me they were going to keep shipping packages for RH/Fedora after being
> bought by Novell, then never did ? F**kers :) (Ok, I *know* I'm going to
> get kicked for that one...)

Troll. ;) And I might note I left ;)


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]