On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 02:39:16AM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote:
We instantly switch to jackd2. End of the story.
Thanks for a clear cut message.
I can accept that.
If noone else has a say against it within the next 24h (where I am busy
anyway attending some family business) I will release
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 09:00:17 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 02:39:16AM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote:
We instantly switch to jackd2. End of the story.
Thanks for a clear cut message.
I can accept that.
If noone else has a say against it within the next 24h (where
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 22:11:15 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Regarding options:
Let me try summarize anew, given my new understanding (dropping
potentially provocative names):
a) Stay with jackd1, ignoring jackd2 and tchack.
b) Switch to jackd2, abandoning jackd1 and ignoring
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 06:38:09AM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 02:39:16AM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote:
We instantly switch to jackd2. End of the story.
Thanks for a clear cut message.
I can accept that.
For Squeeze,
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 01:48:01PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
* conservative: Stay with jackd1, ignoring jackd2 and tchack.
* stubborn: Switch to jackd2, abandoning jackd1 and ignoring tchack.
* bold: switch to supporting multiple implementations.
You seem to want the stubborn
