On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 01:12 +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote: > On Sat, 2012-07-28 at 16:32 +0300, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > > on my free time. I'd like to work on the bugs too, but it's lower in > > priority. So, if you want to get bugs fixed, the most reliable way to > > achieve that is to submit patches. You seem to have spent quite a lot of > > time studying the PulseAudio code already - would you be willing to > > prepare proper patches for the bugs that you've found? > > Not that much time - I investigated bugs 2 and 4 one evening without > prior familiarity with PulseAudio code, then implemented the client-side > workaround for 2 and noticed and analyzed bug 3 another day. Fixing > things like bug 4 should be quicker for people who are already familiar > with the program and have a vision of how things architecturally > _should_ work (not just producing correct output in current case). > Anyway, I now wrote patches for bugs 3 and 4 plus one bug I had not > analyzed before (attached). Thanks a lot for the patches! I've checked the first patch, and it looks good (apart from the coding style issues: comments should only use /* this style */, and variables should only be declared in the beginning of the code block). Before I push the patch, one question: is the email address in the patches intentionally invalid? I'll continue reviewing the rest of the patches. I'll file bugs about the issues that you didn't provide a patch for. -- Tanu
