On 19 May 2010, at 15:58, Marcin 'Rambo' Roguski wrote: > On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:19:13 +0200 (CEST) > "Oliver Seitz" <info at vtnd.de> wrote: > >> he only thing Uoti has done evil is to offer his work to the public >> and >> not keeping it secret ?! > > No, he forked the development without changing it's name. Now there > are two > separate "mplayers", and to make things more confusing - the > development > of which is just one-sided (i.e. SVN fixes go to git, but not in the > other > direction). This has happened many times in the young history of open source. My distro offers a variety different versions in the sys-kernel/*- sources category. Is Andrew Morton in the wrong for maintaining a separate version of the Linux kernel? Ultimately, we users recognise that there are two versions of mplayer now, SNV-mplayer and Uoti-mplayer. You could help by using such a nomenclature; you could refer to "uplayer" if you want to make a special point about Uoti's version not being the "original" or "official" one. This is less problematic and confusing than the distros compiling some ancient version of SVN-mplayer, distributing it as a binary and then their users turning up here for help. It seems like even the latest releases of distros use mplayer snapshots which are a couple of years out of date. Note that if they used snapshots from git they could more easily apply bug-fixes in a more granular fashion. Stroller.
