On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 22:51 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote:
> On 03/22/2012 10:27 PM, David Robillard wrote:
> > The way reality has worked out, stable extensions need to be curated at
> > lv2plug.in or they tend to rot and confuse people. Perhaps the
> > extension mechanism should only really be used during the development
> > process, and we actively *do* want "LV2" to be a collection of
> > peer-reviewed specs that work nicely together you can grab in one place
> > and get on with your work.
> If it is decided that this the course to take, would it not be better to
> attribute a version number to the whole snapshot that meets normal
> version numbering conventions rather than a date?
Well, I don't know about that. Each interface is still a completely
separate thing, and the version numbers for them are maintained
It seems important that a version bump in, say, the state extension,
doesn't mean anything in the core has changed. Paticularly for
developers that don't use state. However, perhaps this argument is
invalid since LV2 specifications never break (their URI must change if
they do, there is no major version).
That's a pretty dramatic change, but it is simpler... a lot simpler...
having all the NEWS files and everything merged, I don't know ...