Paul Davis wrote: > > > [ abramo: please forward to [EMAIL PROTECTED] thanks. ] > > >I'm strongly convinced that to have poll waiting for something that > >cannot happens is a big mistake (also as an optional behaviour). > > there are several, perhaps even lots, of other device drivers in the > linux kernel that do this.
Some examples please. > >That apart I'm sure that to make a change in actual behaviour between > >rcX and 1.0 is a professional suicide. However it's _your_ professional > >suicide so... ;-))) > > not *one* person on alsa-devel has described software that would be > broken by this change. You'll hear the screams *after* the change has been done and not before. This is what happens all the times and I'm sure you understand why. > given that jaroslav is already changing the API between rcX and rcZ, > this doesn't seem like much of a problem, anyway. This is not true as far as I can tell. Jaroslav has made the changes an option selectable at compile time. Consider also that he made a change that break the compilation, while the case we are discussing is more severe: the application still compiles but we'd have a different behaviour. -- Abramo Bagnara mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Opera Unica Phone: +39.546.656023 Via Emilia Interna, 140 48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
