On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 00:17 +0100, David Henningsson wrote: > Hi PulseAudio developers, > > Upstreaming of the jack detection patches seems to take much longer than > I anticipated. :-( This puts me in a difficult position, as I want to > get started with the UI work of the Gnome sound settings as soon as > possible. > > This is because I want the UI work to go into Ubuntu 12.04, early on, to > get as much testing as possible before release. > > Therefore, Conor and I have planned to do this work in the november time > frame. To get started with that, we need extensions to the client API - > and that within the next couple of days. Shortly thereafter, protocol > extensions matching this client API will need to be agreed on. > > At this point, the status of the client API extension (and apologies if > my perception of your opinions are wrong) is: > > * I posted a proposal in October [1] but no responses to that message > so far > > * Arun wants to see inactive sinks being implemented but probably not > exposed through the client API [...] > * Colin probably wants to see inactive sinks being exposed through the > client API, but is generally open to other suggestions as well I was hoping to get started and do a quick proof-of-concept of my idea this weekend to evaluate whether this is feasible in the short-term or not. Real life is preempting this, so I won't be blocking your patches waiting for this to be solved, and I believe Colin's suggestion was also meant to be a general statement and not a "let's do this instead" thing. > * Tanu wants to see ports being implemented as "first class objects" > so that notifications can be made on port level. In the long term, Tanu > wants to merge the "port" and "sink"/"source" concepts into one, but at > this point this is just a vague idea. The two issues here are orthogonal (and I believe Tanu was clear about the second part /not/ being part of the near term solution). Is it really so hard to do the notifications right up-front? > * And I...well, I think the proposal in [1] is the quickest way from A > to B, and I'm tempted to take that because I'm in a hurry, but I do > realise that there are long-term considerations as well, very much > depending on which one(s) of the above opinions that will prevail. > > Do you think we can merge these different views and come up with an > agreed client API within a couple of days? The "let's discuss and > discuss again and then we stall a bit and then more discussions and then > see if we ever come to a consensus and if we don't just do nothing" > approach [2] will just not work out for me here. And I really really not > want to make Ubuntu go its own way here with incompatible client API and > protocol extensions either, so please give me a better option :-) I am against trying to set a deadline of the "let's decide in the next 2 days" kind. That said, the pending disagreements don't seem to be as gloomy as you think, so we should be able to move forwards on this quickly enough. > PS: Will send out new jack detection patches shortly. Only thing changed > is adjustment according to the comments where I believe there was no > dispute. I'll take a fresh look. Am I right in that the pending items are: 1. Notifications on ports as separate objects 2. Tanu's review of patch #6 3. Figuring out where ports fit in the client-visible structures? Regards, Arun
