On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 17:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 17:15 -0700, Christopher Aillon wrote: > > > A compromise works best if both parties are on board. I don't believe > > that the desktop guys will object to the package existing and being > > installable if people want. No CLI needed since we have GUI install > > tools. The objection is with the mandate for it to be installed by > > default on the desktop live/install spins. > > *All* parties agreed on the compromise during the meeting, including > those speaking on behalf of the desktop group. Approximate quote (since > I'm on my laptop and don't have the IRC log handy): "I gave you that if > it's what's needed to make this issue go away". Not everyone has to be > 100% happy with a compromise (not everyone on the other side of the > fence is 100% happy with it either), it just has to be agreed. Oh dear. I never agreed to this compromise. I didn't even know about it until now. I *almost* attended the FESCo meeting, so I could make sure my concerns were represented accurately, but thought better of it for fear of just fanning the flames further, as I wasn't exactly cooled off at the time. For my own sanity I needed to get away from this mess and cool off. It seems I made a grave mistake. My concerns have gotten completely lost, and apparently were never understood by anyone. Reading the FESCo log is only making my blood boil hotter. By the way, Hi, I'm the guy with the "line-in play-through" use case. I already explained why including gnome-alsamixer does nothing to make me any happier here so I won't repeat it: (don't worry, it's clean) https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-April/msg02089.html My two cents on reverting the VolumeControl feature entirely: Well, I guess while this would ultimately address my concerns, it is un-necessarily drastic. It's throwing the baby out with the bath water. The new gnome-volume-control is a beautiful piece of UI. My only problem with it is the panel control wasn't doing quite what I wanted. Just the ability to make one, tiny little change is all I wanted. I want it to control PCM instead of Master. Since the previous mixer infrastructure provided UI for making this change, my expectations were that the new infrastructure would at least continue to provide a hidden option somewhere for this. I began my initial thread in an earnest attempt to get some direction as to how to make this change. I NEVER wanted any visible UI changed. I never wanted any buttons added. I expected from the *start* to be messing with some backend settings somewhere, I just needed to know where they were. After much pain and sorrow, it was revealed there IS a setting that (supposedly) did what I want. (Though I have not gotten it to actually work.) > Not everyone has to be > 100% happy with a compromise (not everyone on the other side of the > fence is 100% happy with it either), it just has to be agreed. A compromise that does absolutely nothing, that is 0%, to address my concerns is productive how? Have the concerns of the person that sparked this whole thing become irrelevant at some point along the way? This thing has certainly spun far out of my control, and no longer even has much to do with what I wanted in the first place.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
