On 04/04/2014 11:31 AM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > I'm heading towards "a generic solution to our current routing issues", > but that solution will depend on Murphy, which will provide the > configurability and the default routing rules. In my opinion, > implementing another solution with good configurability and > better-than-current default routing without Murphy should be implemented > by someone else, if a non-Murphy-based solution is desired. (Just summing up what we discussed on IRC) So the result from all this work is that normal desktop users will get nothing, except an API and quite some infrastructure to maintain. > If I understood correctly, you wish that I'd implement a full generic > non-Murphy-based solution before merging the node infrastructure, but > it's unclear to me whether that wish is a minimum requirement or not, > and if it's not, what's the minimum requirement? I'm not sure what to answer to this question right now. I'd like to hear what others have to say as well. In addition, Colin Guthrie's patches two years ago which implement the device priority lists should perhaps be revived, either instead of this routing patch set, or in parallel/combination with it. Because that's something that would actually bring benefit to users. And seen in hindsight, we probably should have merged that patch set instead of waiting for this routing patch set. -- David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd. https://launchpad.net/~diwic
