Re: [LAU] Ardour: exporting woes

(1) I explained to Fons in person and to everyon on the jack-devel mailing
list what the issues with Fons' original patch. Robin Gareus has eloquently
restated the basic point, but I'll do it again: the ability to REVIEW code
changes is critical to long-lived projects, and when a change consists of
85% or more white-space/code style changes and only 15% actual functional
differences, code review becomes all but impossible. I would like to
bequeath future JACK1 maintainers the ability to go back and understand the
changes from Fons, but that is absurdly hard to do when so much of the
commit would be absolutely irrelevant.

(2) I also documented my process for attempting to test Fons' changes. To
repeat:

        (1) copy the entire code tree, twice
        (2) clean up the first copy with uncrustify, which implies a
canonical coding style throughout. test this version for several days to
identify any obvious regressions from what should be a no-op.
        (3) apply fons' patches to the second copy
        (4) run uncrustify on the result, which makes it similarly
canonical in terms of coding style.
        (5) generate a diff between the two copies which theoretically
should show only the functional differences introduced by fons
        (6) apply the diff and commit
        (7) test

Initially, things seemed to go well during test (otherwise I would not have
pushed). But over a period of a couple of weeks, which in my case typically
involves running Ardour endless times a day, often crashing it, while other
clients run along in the background, I got the distinct impression that the
server was no longer stable in the face of misbehaving clients. I did a git
bisect, as did others, and we confirmed that commit that occured at step
(6) above was responsible. I then reverted that commit (visible on
jack-devel).

There are many other important changes in jack1 git that need to be
released. Unless someone can identify what is wrong with the reverted
commit, it will remain reverted, and I will release 0.125 without it (and
then depart for post-JACK-ness nirvana).

--p

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons@email-addr-hidden>
wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 09:49:00PM +0100, Filipe Coelho wrote:
> > On 24.03.2016 21:24, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > >Conclusion: I have been wasting my time. Ciao,
> >
> > With all due respect... please send a proper patch next time.
>
> It was a proper patch. Changing the 'sorting' algo required some
> new data structures, and everything that depended on the old ones
> had to be changed. This was not something that could be done in
> small steps.
>
> If only parts of the patch are applied I can't be held responsible
> for the result. The complete patch was tested, and not only with
> simple cases but with some purposely designed to reveal problems.
> Everything worked here, and has been working since.
>
> > This is something I'd love to try too, I even attempted to start
> > cleaning up the patch myself too but then Paul said he would do it..
> > If the patch was good from the get-go we wouldn't be having this
> discussion.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linux-audio-user mailing list
> > Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
> > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>
> --
> FA
>
> A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
> It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
> and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Tue Mar 29 20:15:01 2016