| Re: [proaudio] Which Ardour for Ardour2? |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/proaudio Archives
]
Am Donnerstag, 7. Februar 2008 15:59:56 schrieb Thomas Kuther:
> On Do, 07.02.08 15:49 Harald Gutmann <harald.gutmann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 7. Februar 2008 15:44:14 schrieb Thomas Kuther:
> > > On Do, 07.02.08 06:32 "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > I'm sorry, but which Ardour is the latest version?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > lightning ~ # eix ardour
> > > > * media-sound/ardour
> > > > Available versions: (~)0.99.2!m (~)0.99.3!m (~)2.0.3
> > > > (~)2.0.5 (~)2.0.5[1] (**)2.0.99992[1] [M](~)2.1 [M](~)2.1[1]
> > > > (**)2.1.9999[1] (~)2.2 (~)2.2[1] (**)99992[1] {altivec debug fftw
> > > > nls sse sys-libs vst}
> > > > Homepage: http://ardour.org/
> > > > Description: multi-track hard disk recording software
> > > >
> > > > [1] "proaudio" /usr/portage/local/layman/pro-audio
> > > > lightning ~ #
> > >
> > > 2.2 <- latest release
> > > 2.0.99992 / 2.1.9999 <- SVN 2.0 ongoing (they are identical)
> > > 99992 <- SVN trunk
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > PS: maybe we should rename 2.0.99992/2.1.9999 to 2.9999 to avoid
> > > some unmasking issues? e.g. 2.2 is "newer" than 2.1.9999
> >
> > why not name it 2.2.9999 or in a few days then 2.3.9999.
> > 2.3 is short before official release.
> >
> >
> > regards, harald
>
> I guess fixes for 2.3 also go into the 2.0-ongoing SVN branch, so we
> would have to bump it all the time, 2.9999 does it once and forever.
yes, that's the better solution.
> But looking at their SVN, trunk is gone, and there is a 3.0 branch now
> o.O
the 3.0 branch was introduced after the release of version 2.2.
but as it seems, there will be further releases of the 2.X branch, because in
the announce for 2.3 paul is writing about an version 2.4.
regards, harald