Great news Filipe! I'm happy that you are the new maintainer. Regarding the version for the new release, I wonder if it would be better if the next version was 1.9.12, and not 1.9.11? The reason is that we have already had a 1.9.11 release for Windows (when you go to jackaudio.org and download for windows, you find 1.9.11). I've been using 1.9.11, and included it with Radium, since long before it was officially released. And it works fine too as far as I know. Another thing. Regarding the versioning type on OSX. Maybe it would be a good idea to use the same versioning as for Linux and Windows? I don't know the reason for using 0.9x instead of 1.9.x on OSX though. On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Hermann Meyer <brummer-(a)web.de> wrote:

The latest JackOSX 0.93 package was indeed based on jackd 1.9.11. Having a same numbering for OS X stuff would certainly help. The hard part is to create this OS X specific package again. Stéphane

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Stéphane Letz <letz(a)grame.fr> wrote: Hi, is there a JackOSX 0.93 package, or did you mean 0.92?

On Wed, June 14, 2017 14:17, Stéphane Letz wrote: >> Le 14 juin 2017 à 14:14, Kjetil Matheussen <k.s.matheussen(a)gmail.com>> a écrit : >>>>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Kjetil Matheussen >> <k.s.matheussen(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Great news Filipe! >>>> I'm happy that you are the new maintainer. >>>>> Just to be clear, Stephane did a very good job too of course. >>>>>> The reason is that we have already had a 1.9.11 release for Windows >>> (when you go to jackaudio.org and download for windows, you find >>> 1.9.11). >>>>> Also, the last OSX release is placed under a "1.9.11" directory, so I >> guess that one is a 1.9.11 release as well. > The latest JackOSX 0.93 package was indeed based on jackd 1.9.11. Having > a same numbering for OS X stuff would certainly help. The hard part is to > create this OS X specific package again. > Stéphane Hi, i'm just thinking out loud for releases - Hand-crafting a release for OS X or Windows sounds like serious magic for most people while for Linux it's relatively straight forward. If there would be a release process that's doing all the hard work automatically, a new release wouldn't bind resources that are more valuable to invest in other aspects. There wouldn't be -RC releases and found to be good binaries would be just a specific release out of a (RC-style release) series. IMO the Ardour project is a good example of how to handle releases. They manage to automatically create binaries (in several variations) for Linux, OS X and Windows on a daily basis. While the JACK codebase won't change on a daily basis, the release process can be handy nonetheless. I wondered if some of the Ardour build infrastructure could be re-used for JACK? Like surfing on the same wave. Robin could do it i'm sure - I'm wondering if this is looked at as a reasonable proposal. I'm sure we'd find community members to sponsor the needed initial work in some way to people who can do it. Any thoughts? Best regards Thomas

On 14.06.2017 14:08, Kjetil Matheussen wrote: Sounds like a good idea actually. Let's sort out the Windows and OSX builds and then call it 1.9.12. For the Windows builds, it should be possible to build the jack2 code with waf and mingw, other have mentioned it but I never tried it myself. My mingw build is quite old, I will have to update it first. If you succeed on this before me, let me know. OSX builds sound more the tricky one. I think it's better to get a working Windows build first. Then focus on OSX.