On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 09:25 +0100, Colin Guthrie wrote: > 'Twas brillig, and Arun Raghavan at 02/05/11 07:49 did gyre and gimble: > >> > In e193c2bf55326a48e2297bcacadc9d1848a40d7d and > >> > 948d0f19bef353208ffb5b1b8c520b6b489b94a6 > >> > > >> > Can you make sure that pactl and pacmd stay as in-sync as possible? > > I held off because I thought that pacmd was going to be dropped before > > too long. Is this not the case? Sink port information seems to have not > > been added, I'll sync that as well if required. > > Hmm, not sure. Ideally I'd prefer to just have one tool and only add to > pacmd the things that cannot easily be done via the protocol, but I'm > not sure of the overall strategy. > > I'll add this to the discussion points for Saturday's chat. Was this discussed? Any news? > >> > In bb7cc499f1815de1c90b0ef1850152224df96ff9 > >> > > >> > I don't see why this asserts in the current form nor what has actually > >> > changed. > > It should not assert since we want to gracefully fail (that is the > > original code should not have been an assert). > > I still don't see any asserts in the original code. The only difference > I can see is that a pa_log_debug() is not printed... (the log message > says the word "Assertion" but it doesn't actually assert AFAICT...) > > This might be intended (i.e. don't print the log message), but if that's > the case the commit message is still wrong to mention asserts... Ah, I see what you mean. Commit message amended. > >> > General Question: > >> > > >> > Has this broken tunnels? (we manage to do this quite often with stream > >> > protocol changes... > > Indeed, it does. I've put fixing this on my TODO list. Will try to get > > to it soon. > > Cool, thanks :) Done and pushed to my tree. :) Cheers, Arun
