2010/2/1 Christopher Brown <snecklifter@xxxxxxxxx>: > On 15 January 2010 11:03, Rudolf Kastl <che666@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 2010/1/14 Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 01:46:52PM +0100, Rudolf Kastl wrote: >>> >>>> thats exactly what i am "complaining" about. it states that burning >>>> failed. id expect it to tell me that polling failed. thats not really >>>> "randomly" but a common way to tune systems for maximized battery >>>> lifetime. powertop e.g. recommends it, i guess that makes it less >>>> random. i do understand though that not every single possible setting >>>> can be tested before release, thats basically why i wrote that email. >>> >>> The power savings are minimal. While it's certainly a bug in Brasero >>> that should be fixed, I wouldn't bother disabling polling. >> >> the sum of various minimal savings makes a difference. > > ...when traded off against the numerous CDs that get thrown away when > the user thought they were bad? Yeah that is a bug that needs to be fixed. Just the burn isnt bad just because polling is off. The output of the program is plain wrong like in the other case above. Also just because it can poll the device it is not a proof that the burn was successful either so i am curious if that "test" even makes sense at all if you dont compare e.g. checksums instead of just beeing able to "poll" I am just curious if upstream doesent care about usability and doesent listen to input if it is wise to have it as the default burning tool on the default spin with the default desktop. kind regards, Rudolf Kastl -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
