Re: upstream and bugfixes

["Måns Rullgård" <mans@mansr.com>]

Jan Stary <hans@stare.cz> writes:

> Hi Mans,
>
> just to clear it up for myself:
> https://sourceforge.net/p/sox/code/ci/master/tree/
> is still the ultimate upstream, right?

Yes, that is the most current code.

> For reference: there is also
> https://github.com/cbagwell/sox (last commit 2015, 4 issues, 2 PRs)
> https://github.com/mansr/sox (forked, last 2017, 1PR, no issue tracker)
> (and a bunch of nobody's forks of these of course, such as mine).
>
> These can be ignored when packaging downstream, right?

Right, packagers should ignore those.

> Are the commits in your GH fork included in the SF git?

Some, not all.  There are some things there of a more experimental
nature that I'm not comfortable making official.

> What is currently the right way to report bugs and propose fixes?
> Are diffs to this devel list the preffered way?

This list or the SF trackers are both fine by me.

> The SF issues seem to be untouched for years.

Send more time.

> Last commit to the SF git is May 2021; where should current fixes
> such as https://marc.info/?l=oss-security&m=167546008232629&w=2 be sent?

I detest so-called security people and the way they handle their
so-called vulnerabilities.  If they cared about anything other than
their own egos, they'd try to engage constructively with the code
authors/maintainers rather than filing CVE entries without asking or
understanding, then sending menacing emails in private.

> Also, last release was 8 years ago.  Piling the patches
> is starting to get cubersome when packaging downstream
> - are there any plans for a release?

I can slap a tag on the git repo and call it a day if that makes people
happy.  The process for creating the files comprising earlier releases
is convoluted and probably broken in a million ways by now.

-- 
Måns Rullgård


_______________________________________________
SoX-devel mailing list
SoX-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-devel