Re: [proaudio] Which Ardour for Ardour2?

[Thomas Kuther <gimpel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

But looking at their SVN, trunk is gone, and there is a 3.0 branch now
o.O

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature