mirror of
https://github.com/lox-audioserver/lox-audioserver.git
synced 2026-04-25 22:35:53 +03:00
[GH-ISSUE #67] Version 2.x #23
Labels
No labels
bug
enhancement
pull-request
released
released on @beta
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
starred/lox-audioserver#23
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @mr-manuel on GitHub (Nov 4, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/lox-audioserver/lox-audioserver/issues/67
Is there a reason why you deleted the old version completely and non just moved it to a own branch? Could you add it again as a separate branch? The release 2.5.1 is empty.
@rudyberends commented on GitHub (Nov 8, 2025):
The idea was to release a final version of 2.5.1, which would create a release and a ZIP archive containing the source code as a reference. I initially assumed that ZIP file would be static, but I now see that it isn’t—so it ends up being empty since the source has been removed.
The 2.x codebase was never built with the concept of providers in mind. It was originally meant for basic player control only. When Music Assistant came to my attention, I quickly integrated it over a weekend. Combined with the fact that older Loxone clients handled data in a completely different way, this made the codebase rather messy.
The 3.x codebase is much cleaner, simpler, and easier to maintain. I don’t think there’s any real value in restoring the old code here. If you want to reference it, there are still some forks that contain the 2.x branch, but given how that version was structured, it’s not particularly useful as a reference.
With what’s currently in the testing branch, everything that existed in 2.x is now covered in 3.x. If there’s anything you notice missing, we can easily re-implement it.
@mr-manuel commented on GitHub (Nov 8, 2025):
I wanted only to make some test with 2.5.1 and 3.0.1/testing. Thanks for the explanation.