On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 03:45:31PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > >> hint: the patch to add a new port type to JACK will involve on the >> same order of magnitude number of characters as have already been used >> in this email thread. > > Indeed. But why should anyone submit a patch for an idea that > has already been rejected, in particular if the rejection was > motivated in a way that implicitly condones crappy programming > instead of criticizing it ? What sort of excellence can you > expect if things are decided in that way ? (1) it wasn't rejected. > Don't take this personally, but I've had enough of this sort > of negative argumentation for some time. I do remember the LV2 > discussions (2), the Jack session ones, and some others. And > the result is that I go my own way, even if that leads to a > loss of synergy and benefit for all. fair enough. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
