Amarok 1.4.10 patches

[Dr. Diesel]

On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Mark Kretschmann  wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ian Monroe  wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Rich  wrote:
> >>> On 2009.01.30. 20:36, Ian Monroe wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> >>>>> I've noticed that a few patches we have applied seemingly never made
> it
> >>>>> upstream. The libmtp patch is a bit ugly, since the build script
> isn't
> >>>>> modified accordingly and the build requires libmtp 0.3.x instead
> working with
> >>>>> 0.2.x as well, but I don't have interest to redo someone elses patch.
> >>>>
> >>>> You mean it requires 0.3, but the configure script still only requires
> >>>> 0.2? Sounds fine to me. ;)
> >>>>
> >>>>> Please
> >>>>> apply as you like.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well we're not going to release another Amarok 1.4, so as far as I'm
> >>>> concerned the distros can commit stuff to it as they want to help each
> >>>> other out.
> >>>
> >>> what about evaluating and applying patches to svn branch (still without
> >>> doing a release) ?
> >>> that would at least unify distro versions a bit
> >>
> >> My point was that I'm OK with distros committing stuff themselves,
> >> since we're not really maintaining it anymore, they are. I'm not sure
> >> if other devs agree with me or not though.
> >
> > Committing to the SVN branch is theoretically fine I think, but what
> > about quality control? We can't provide that, and neither do we want
> > to risk people committing regressions. That's the only problem I see.
>

The 1.4 branch is/was way too good to give up on yet!

I volunteer to help police it, even though I'm only a 1/2 developer..

-- 
projecthuh.com
All of my bits are free, are yours?  Fedoraproject.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/amarok/attachments/20090131/dead754d/attachment.html>