[Openal] Updated Windows AL 1.1 SDK (Beta)

[Sven Panne]

Garin Hiebert wrote:
> [...]  We'll end up with a better system in that 
> things are going to be tagged appropriately along with the binary 
> releases.  The first AL 1.1 CVS updates should start hitting the 
> repository in a week or so...

I think the previous sentences are a perfect way to bring up my
concerns about our current CVS strategy again, see:

    http://opensource.creative.com/pipermail/openal-devel/2005-April/000848.html

There were no replies to that mail, but I think now with 1.1
approaching, we should really agree on how to do the branching
and say farewell to the "grab the HEAD for stable stuff" attitude.
Any comments on the mail above? It would be very good if Creative
and the rest of the OpenAL developers agreed on this topic before
1.1 code hits CVS.

A completely orthogonal topic is the use of CVS itself: While
I'm happy with it most of the time, its lack of a renaming feature
sometimes really hurts (at least when you want to keep the history).
And moving some files around a bit to get a better structure into
the Linux SI would really help to convert that part into a standard
autoconf/automake/libtool project, something I'd really like to do.
The obvious candidate for a CVS replacement would be Subversion
(http://subversion.tigris.org/). It has a lot of nice additional
features, too (atomicity, offline operations, less bandwidth usage,
easier + safer administration, ...). Are there any plans in this
direction? If Creative doesn't want to be involved in the Subversion
administration business (even though it's *really* easy), there are
quite a few SourceForge-like sites with Subversion support, e.g.
http://developer.berlios.de/

But I don't want to start a version control system Jihad, simply
agreeing on a sensible branching strategy would be a very important
initial step...

Cheers,
    S.