At Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:18:48 +0100, Daniel Mack wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 03:06:57PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > At Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:01:29 +0100, > > Daniel Mack wrote: > > > > > > Ok, will do. However, I wonder which way is best to do that. Given that > > > you posted patches on top of mine, can I take this as a general > > > agreement to my changeset? If so, I will just provide a patch on top to > > > do the ua101 -> misc rename, because otherwise, I would have to rebase > > > all three patches for that. > > > > Well, honestly, I prefer seeing the fixes by Clemens based on the > > current code, and merge Daniel's refactoring patches after 2.6.34 > > merge window. > > Clemens fixes only make sense for v2 of the USB audio spec, which isn't > fully supported yet. IOW, the code as it will go into 2.6.34 is not able > to support that, with or without my refactoring. So rebasing them > doesn't make sense IMO. OK, then we can merge them together later. > > Refactoring is a good thing but it can easily introduce any careless > > bugs (like copy&paste error), and this split action makes really hard > > to track the changes. Thus I'd like to keep this well ripened before > > reaching to the Linus tree, not only for a few days. > > Yes, certainly. I didn't expect that to be taken for .34. Good that we agree :) > I would be fine with having it in a branch on your side, and getting > it merged to your for-next after any .34 issues are sorted out. > > There will be quite some more patches to fully support the most common > features, but they won't be as intrusive and big of course. Fair enough. thanks, Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
