On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm aware that your solution seems to be more code-complete than Steven's > proposal. > > But the recent activity on the mailing list regarding his idea (and its, > so far, positive feedback) and the fact that I was anyway planning to > have a discussion about the future of the DVB-API at the Linux Plumbers > Conference 2008 are supporting me in my idea of post-poning such a pull to > a point in time shortly after this event. I understand peoples frustration in waiting for multiproto since I'm one of them as well. However, I believe the support for Steven's proposal is largely because people aren't aware that multiproto is now in a ready-state and has a pull request pending. Over the last several months I've seen many question when/if multiproto will be done, or if it is dead... I think we all agree that it has taken quite some time for multiproto to get to a point where it's ready but that time has come. Multiproto -can- be pulled in right now, and if that happened, drivers could be written immediately, finally providing users with what they've needed for so long. In my opinion it makes no sense to throw out a robust api that is ready right now just because of frustration and past personal grudges (whether anyone will openly admit to this or not, it -is- a part of this). The questions for consideration -should be-... Is the code ready? Can it handle future specs? Is it missing anything that should be included? If the code is ready and is robust, then the final question is what benefit is there in making people wait yet longer for another api to be written? Will this new api proposal offer anything that multiproto doesn't already? It seems we can finally move forward and now instead of incomplete code stopping it, politics are. _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
