> On 5 June 2010 21:58, Olivier Guilyardi <l...@samalyse.com> wrote: >> Le 05/06/10 13:45, Renato a écrit : >>> >>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:18:02 +0200 >>> Philipp<hollun...@lavabit.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> this is all about making Linux Audio more useful. >>>> The idea came about because on the one hand there are parts of Linux >>>> audio that really need some coders attention and on the other hand >>>> there are coders who don't know where to start. I realize that there >>>> never are more than enough coders, so this is mainly about bringing >>>> attention to the parts that need it the most. >>>> >>>> To a degree it's what bug/feature trackers are there for, but those >>>> are usually per application, and while there are category and priority >>>> systems in place those are rarely used. >>>> So what this is also about is bridging a gap between users, developers >>>> and between applications. >>>> >>>> It would be quite simple really. >>>> An easy to find, central place, possibly a wiki or a tracker. >>>> Anyone, a user most likely, describes his workflow and what the >>>> showstopper is. This could be applications not syncing properly, or an >>>> essential but missing feature. The idea is to tackle mainly >>>> infrastructure and cross application problems, with the goal to make a >>>> workflow actually work. >>>> The user should have to specify all relevant information available, >>>> such as version information, links, probably some kind of priority or >>>> urgency indication and how hard he believes it would be. >>>> He could also put up a reward of sorts, not necessarily monetary. >>>> Any developer could pick up the task and work on it, possibly leaving >>>> a notice. >>>> >>>> The possible benefits I see are: >>>> a) A kind of overview of what's needed the most, one place where you >>>> can see what's actually important to users. >>>> b) A way to identify and fix problems between applications - >>>> something I believe is very important for a system that encourages >>>> the use of multiple applications at once. I believe there are numerous >>>> synchronisation/transport issues for example which are never really >>>> tackled, despite this being a very important part of the >>>> infrastructure. c) Emphasis on actual workflow and usability. >>>> d) It would work for any program, even those without tracker and those >>>> that aren't high profile and aren't usually in the center of >>>> attention. >>>> >>>> Could this work? What do you think? > > Sure, it's a neat idea. If implemented _properly_, it will at least > serve the function of having a centralised database of such issues. > But what really caught my attention is this: > >>> One feature I believe would be useful is that if I file a "bug" >>> regarding the interaction of app 1,2 and 3, the relative devs get >>> automatically mailed and can jump in the discussion > > Now, I'm not very optimistic about co-operation between developers of > app 1, 2 and 3, unless all three are high-profile. The only assurance > is a monetary bounty system. >
I like this idea and I can see a place for it at Linuxaudio.org. A centralised feature/bug/infrastructure tracker. I think the hardest part will be to isolate the most important information and present it in a very obvious way. This could easily get left high and dry by making the system too complex for the info that is being aggregated. A way to start the system could be to collate the info using rss feeds from the various bug trackers that are already in use. -- Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
