Yeah, another lame, but in this alpha version the changes are not listed in the history.txt, what's are the new features? o are only a bugfix of 3.95.1?

you might aswell have looked at the official changelog at the official lame page...
anyway, here are the changes done so far:

-Takehiro Tominaga:
fixed decoding issue
-Aleksander Korzynski:
changed internal ReplayGain handling

what do you mean by 'only'? I myself think bugfixes have much higher priority than new features...

edit: stupid typo + new q

Thanks I don't know the lame changelog page: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*che...y.html?rev=1.59

your'e welcome now you do

Yes the bugfixes are important, but they only are confusing people with a lot of versions, if 3.96a1 is a bugfix version of version 3.95.1 why the developers not named it 3.95.2? With alphas releases the people thinks that's only a test version . The same thing passed with lame 3.94b1.

well you got a point there. though I guess as 3.95(.1) was labeled as stable, they coudn't, or didn't want to fix the 'stable' version resulting in 3.95.2. that might be the new alphas reason. or even some other new features or important fixes on the list comming soon, who knows?

edit: however, it's good to see some progress going on.

So where do I get it? If there is only a bug fix, and nothing else has been altered, I obviously want to use this one in stead of 3.95.1.

Rarewares


Do you know what this means exactly?

yeah, much as i support lame this numbering system looks retarded - imho they should *never* label anything stable, do minor release e.g. 3.95, 3.95.1, 3.95.2 (would be this release), 3.95.3 ... until finally, they are done bugfixing and the testers are happy or they want to go on developing new stuff, then 3.95.8 or whatever would be labelled stable.. you get the idea.. apologies if there is a great logic behind the numbers i've missed.. and even a weirdly named bugfix release is 100x better than no bugfix release

edit: oops ok read Gabriel's post below

Just for clarification:

WE DID NOT RELEASED 3.96a1

It is just directly pulled from the cvs (source code repository), and in no way it can be considered to be released.

Each time we release a version, we enter into next version alpha stage, so it is perfectly normal that after releasing 3.95.1 there is 3.96a1 in the cvs. This does not change the fact that alpha versions are alpha, and should not be used for anything except testing.

Isn't there a sticky thread about lame alpha versions in the mp3 forum ?

well, http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=4763& should be more than enough IMO, considering the fact, that it's more or less common sense thats alpha versions realy mean alpha

thanks for clearing this up Gabriel.

edit: wrong link, hyperlink didn't work with this one...