Currently, the community in general is likely experiencing the extra burden on remote working that is the result of our global pandemic state we find the world in. Admittedly, this is not directly related to the topic, but is at least indirectly. There are people globally relying on their video conferencing for their work, and more importantly, for some connectivity to the ones they care about. This includes Fedora users. In such a situation as we are collectively, it is possibly more important to ensure operational capability in the short term than to embrace the leading edge changes. I don't mean forsake the principal of bringing new software "First", nor do I think Fedora should necessarily bend to the "must be absolutely stable to use" mantra of some other distro's. Fedora was never that IMO, it has been at or near the bleeding edge from the beginning. As for PulseAudio, at this moment I find it is not even noticed, which I take as a result of it's maturity and stability.
F34 is currently in rawhide state and maybe this is the time to introduce this change, I am not fully up on the differences between it and Pipewire to offer a technical perspective. I do have a user perspective, and it is in line with my comment above. Would it be so bad to push this change out to F35? I know the change could help certain packages such as Steam potentially (wrt flatpak version I thought), but does it help across the board on Fedora with audio connectivity?
BTW, I remeber the groaning about no good audio solution on Fedora before PA came along, I understand the reluctance to change it out.
Just my thoughts on it.
Stephen
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 09:48, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 18:20 +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 06:01:18PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 11/20/20 5:26 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > The pulseaudio package will be uninstalled and pipewire-pulse will be installed. > > > > pipewire-pulse does not yet implement all the features of pulseaudio > > but it is expected that > > comparable functionality will be implemented later. Most notable > > features that are likely > > not going to be available for fedora 34 > IMO, this alone disqualifies this plan. > > Fedora should be a stable end-user distro and not a testing site for eager > devs to test their immature and incomplete works. I think Fedora should establish strong "no regressions" rule when replacing system software like this. PulseAudio has had 15 years of development, features and fixes. It is hard to believe pipewire is as capable as a replacement now.I disagree. This would be incompatible with the "First" foundation. If we'd had a "no regressions" rule for pre-PA audio, we'd probably never have landed PA, or not for years. Are things on the whole better since we did? I'd say yes. Will our first release with pipewire probably have some bugs that constitute regressions from the previous audio setup? Almost certainly. Especially given the sheer amounts of stuff people do - see your config below - I think we'd find it difficult to have a "no regressions" rule and still be Fedora. Part of Fedora's job is to adopt new things and shake some of the initial bugs out of them.Of course we would need to start with collecting the use cases, and this will be different for every user. For example, I frequently use my laptop with 3 sound devices present: built-in speakers, speakers connected to USB-C dock and bluetooth headphones*. I use pavucontrol to route applications to proper output/input and I expect this to work the same with PW. This is important to me.Did that all work with the first Fedora with PA in it? I bet not. Would we have as capable a PA today if Fedora hadn't taken the leap to include PA? Probably not.On the other hand, I do not use AC3 passthrough when watching movies and I'm not so much interested in power saving through dynamic latency/timers adjustment and suspending outputs. If this ceased to work, _I_ wouldn't notice. But for someone this may be crucial. The same for equalizer modules. Or volume ramp up. Or multiple device combining. And so on.Yes, and on and on and on and on and on and on and on...Right now "How to test" section of Change Proposal contains only very rudimentary cases like "check if rhythmbox plays". This is not enough when replacing as potent software as PulseAudio.*This*, though, I tend to agree with. "How to test" sections do tend to be mailed in. It would be good to cover at least a range of commonly used configurations here. QA folks, this is definitely a Change that (if approved) we should do a Test Day (or several) for, and probably one that could use help with a better test plan. Do we have any domain experts who'd like to volunteer to work on that? Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
