On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 21:59 +0200, rosea.grammostola wrote:
[...]
> I think it's essential to the discussion to get the cards on the
> table, so everybody can make up his own mind and decides which SM is the
> best solution for the Linuxaudio session puzzle. It would be nice if we
> could reach agreement on this, but it's a free world indeed. :)
With apologies in advance, here are my cards:
It would be nice if this list could stick to actual
developer/development problems. I just spent quite some time catching
up on this thread, and almost nothing at all of value (i.e. something
towards solving the/a problem) has been contributed since last I
checked. Mostly just a bunch of wannabe bureaucracy political noise,
which only obscures any actual technical points that might need fleshing
out (i.e. it's actively hurting, not helping). I doubt I'm the only one
interested in the problem who's just given up on this thread because the
signal:noise ratio is ridiculous.
Take the politics to LAU or something. The official resolution of the
User Committee on The Agreed-Upon Solution for LAD Session Management
will have zero impact on what developers actually implement, but
dragging the signal:noise ratio into the gutter might - though probably
not the impact you were hoping for.
-dr
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Thu Apr 5 00:15:03 2012
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 05 2012 - 00:15:03 EEST