On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 07:03:45PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: > On 06/12/13 7:01 PM, Landry Breuil wrote: > >On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 03:22:23PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: > >>On 06/12/13 8:05 AM, Landry Breuil wrote: > >>>On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 11:00:42PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: > >>>>Here is an update to libvpx 1.2.0. > >>>> > >>>>OK? > >>> > >>>All i know is that libvpx 1.2.0 got just merged in mozilla-central, and > >>>they're already working on the upcoming 1.3.0 for vp9 support. > >>>https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=918550 > >>>https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=763495 > >>> > >>>I'll try to enable --with-system-libvpx within firefox, since now iirc > >>>it's more supported (and less patched) than before. > >> > >>I want to look at 1.3.0 but I have no idea how long it will take > >>them to put out a release. 1.2.0 was tagged 11 months ago and even > >>with me poking and prodding them on IRC and their mailing list it > >>still took them 9 months to put out the release. Very odd behavior > >>with these guys. So I'm looking at 1.2.0 since it is just a small > >>number of bug fixes and we'll see how long 1.3.0 takes to be released. > >> > >>AFAIK 1.2.0 has fixes for some issues found via FF. > > > >And apparently 1.3.0 was tagged 4 days ago, since mozilla now requires > > That's why I said what I did in the first sentence. Tagging in itself > doesn't result in a release.
Sorry, but in those 'i tagged something on github' sad days, at tag _is_ a release - up to anyone to wrap up a tarball from it. Landry
