On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 20:34 +0100, Georg Chini wrote:
> One more thing before you push your patch: In source_put_cb()
> and sink_put_cb() you do not use the return value of
> create_dbus_object_for_*(). There should be a (void) before the
> calls to avoid warnings about the unused return value.
On 13.03.2017 20:04, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 18:45 +0100, Georg Chini wrote:
On 13.03.2017 17:45, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 07:57 +0100, Georg Chini wrote:
Yes, it is no regression. But anyway, while you are improving it, I
would use a string for the user
On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 18:45 +0100, Georg Chini wrote:
> On 13.03.2017 17:45, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 07:57 +0100, Georg Chini wrote:
> > > Yes, it is no regression. But anyway, while you are improving it, I
> > > would use a string for the user configured sink as you say and
On 13.03.2017 18:45, Georg Chini wrote:
On 13.03.2017 17:45, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 07:57 +0100, Georg Chini wrote:
On 12.03.2017 23:07, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
On Sun, 2017-03-12 at 16:45 +0100, Georg Chini wrote:
On 16.02.2017 11:09, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
"Refactor" is the
On 13.03.2017 17:45, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 07:57 +0100, Georg Chini wrote:
On 12.03.2017 23:07, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
On Sun, 2017-03-12 at 16:45 +0100, Georg Chini wrote:
On 16.02.2017 11:09, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
"Refactor" is the wrong word, you are changing the logic.
On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 07:57 +0100, Georg Chini wrote:
> On 12.03.2017 23:07, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> > On Sun, 2017-03-12 at 16:45 +0100, Georg Chini wrote:
> > > On 16.02.2017 11:09, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> > >
> > > "Refactor" is the wrong word, you are changing the logic.
> > > Maybe redesign is
On 12.03.2017 23:07, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
On Sun, 2017-03-12 at 16:45 +0100, Georg Chini wrote:
On 16.02.2017 11:09, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
"Refactor" is the wrong word, you are changing the logic.
Maybe redesign is a better verb.
Indeed. I think I'll change it to "improve" ("redesign" feels a
On Sun, 2017-03-12 at 16:45 +0100, Georg Chini wrote:
> On 16.02.2017 11:09, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
>
> "Refactor" is the wrong word, you are changing the logic.
> Maybe redesign is a better verb.
Indeed. I think I'll change it to "improve" ("redesign" feels a bit
strong).
> > Currently the
On 16.02.2017 11:09, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
"Refactor" is the wrong word, you are changing the logic.
Maybe redesign is a better verb.
Currently the default sink policy is simple: either the user has
configured it explicitly, in which case we always use that as the
default, or we pick the sink
Currently the default sink policy is simple: either the user has
configured it explicitly, in which case we always use that as the
default, or we pick the sink with the highest priority. The sink
priorities are currently static, so there's no need to worry about
updating the default sink when sink
10 matches
Mail list logo
