On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 08:31 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 5:16 AM, rosea.grammostola
> <rosea.grammostola@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> > It's pretty odd that you guys didn't discuss this clearly with each
> > other. It seems that people have an opinion about something, but only
> > share this with people who have the same opinion and not with the one
> > who himself or his code is subject of 'critique'. This is bad
> > communication and bad team management.
>
> oh god. you clearly don't understand ANYTHING about how open source
> development works.
>
> there was constant discussion about all of this. But Stephane doesn't
> own JACK, I don't own JACK, Torben doesn't own JACK, Jack O'Quinn
> doesn't own JACK. When someone works on their own implementation of
> JACK, they are free to make their own decisions about how things are
> done. Maybe their ideas will be better (or worse, or about the same)
> as any existing implementation, and because of this, its important to
> allow them to take shape as they see fit. Clearly, providing useful
> feedback and ideas is great, but there's no reason for any committees
> or meetings to decide how a different implementation is going to work.
>
> In this particular case, Jack2 started out (as Stephane has described)
> as a sort of experiment - how would SMP support work, could we do
> click-free graph changes, would a C++ implementation be easier to
> manage, etc. etc. In that context, its not appropriate for anyone
> who's not actually working on it to be trying to make decisions about
> internal design. Lots of people, including myself, had input into the
> design and evolution of Jack2. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous.
>
> Jack1, Jack2 (and even the not-quite-born tschak) all implement 99.83%
> of the same API. Beyond that, how they work internally is the business
> of their implementors and maintainers. If someone has an opinion about
> it, they are free to take it up with the implementors and maintainers.
> If they feel strongly enough about it, and they don't feel that the
> implementors/maintainers are doing things in the right way, they can
> fork or reimplement (this clearly doesn't happen much).
This could all be true, but that's not the point I was talking about.
JACK2 was planned as successor of JACK1. But at some point that changed,
that's all ok, not the point here. But isn't it odd that this isn't
clearly communicated with the JACK2 maintainer, why this is happened?
That was raising questions here about the communication within the
(highly appreciated) JACK project.
quote=Stephane
> I must say that I still don't have a clear understanding of why this
> happened. I still don't understand the sentence "Like Torben, there
> are some design decisions there that I have questions about." and I
> think explaining it in more details would really help.
Regards,
\r
>
> > It would be good if an '(mini) JACK Conference' will be organized, where
> > JACK developers can speak each other face to face, code to code. And
> > share future vision, coding vision etc. IRC and mailinglists are great,
> > but not always the good method for communication.
>
> Traditionally, this would be done at the Linux Audio Conference, which
> I will, alas, be unable to attend this year. That doesn't stop other
> people from meeting on these issues, but my impression is that we have
> all become somewhat tired of struggling with the situation and instead
> have been trying to find ways to allow the status quo to continue, but
> better.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Mon Apr 19 00:15:02 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 19 2010 - 00:15:02 EEST