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.
> Fo
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 ignorin
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, I'm OK with this, too.
-gabriel
_
Hi,
|--==> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 09:11:27 +0200, Reinhard Tartler
said:
RT> 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 c
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 24
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 jac
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 st
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 01:48:01PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 13:30:55 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I don't understand the libjack-0.116.0 thing. Is that going to be
the package name? If so, that sounds like we would be repeating
the libjack0.100.0 mistake.
I
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 13:30:55 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I don't understand the libjack-0.116.0 thing. Is that going to be
the package name? If so, that sounds like we would be repeating the
libjack0.100.0 mistake.
>>>
>>> It is more like an add-on tag, indicating the libr
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:09:50PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 09:45:22 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 07:48:26PM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Let me then adjust and refine my proposal
10 matches
Mail list logo