On 2014-04-17 12:41, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
On Fri, 2014-04-04 at 15:50 +0200, David Henningsson wrote:
On 04/04/2014 11:31 AM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
I'm heading towards "a generic solution to our current routing issues",
but that solution will depend on Murphy, which will provide the
configurability and the default routing rules. In my opinion,
implementing another solution with good configurability and
better-than-current default routing without Murphy should be implemented
by someone else, if a non-Murphy-based solution is desired.
(Just summing up what we discussed on IRC)
So the result from all this work is that normal desktop users will get
nothing, except an API and quite some infrastructure to maintain.
If I understood correctly, you wish that I'd implement a full generic
non-Murphy-based solution before merging the node infrastructure, but
it's unclear to me whether that wish is a minimum requirement or not,
and if it's not, what's the minimum requirement?
I'm not sure what to answer to this question right now. I'd like to hear
what others have to say as well.
Others were silent, so in the absence of permission from you to do
anything else I think I'll have to work with the assumption that I will
need to provide some kind of configurable non-Murphy-based routing
module before the routing infrastructure can be accepted to master.
Well, I'd much prefer to hear more opinions about it. It's difficult for
me to know as well.
--
David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd.
https://launchpad.net/~diwic
_______________________________________________
pulseaudio-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
