On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 21:59 +0200, rosea.grammostola wrote: [...] > I think it's essential to the discussion to get the cards on the > table, so everybody can make up his own mind and decides which SM is the > best solution for the Linuxaudio session puzzle. It would be nice if we > could reach agreement on this, but it's a free world indeed. :)
With apologies in advance, here are my cards: It would be nice if this list could stick to actual developer/development problems. I just spent quite some time catching up on this thread, and almost nothing at all of value (i.e. something towards solving the/a problem) has been contributed since last I checked. Mostly just a bunch of wannabe bureaucracy political noise, which only obscures any actual technical points that might need fleshing out (i.e. it's actively hurting, not helping). I doubt I'm the only one interested in the problem who's just given up on this thread because the signal:noise ratio is ridiculous. Take the politics to LAU or something. The official resolution of the User Committee on The Agreed-Upon Solution for LAD Session Management will have zero impact on what developers actually implement, but dragging the signal:noise ratio into the gutter might - though probably not the impact you were hoping for. -dr _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
