On 2014-04-17 12:41, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > On Fri, 2014-04-04 at 15:50 +0200, David Henningsson wrote: >> 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. > > Others were silent, so in the absence of permission from you to do > anything else I think I'll have to work with the assumption that I will > need to provide some kind of configurable non-Murphy-based routing > module before the routing infrastructure can be accepted to master. Well, I'd much prefer to hear more opinions about it. It's difficult for me to know as well. -- David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd. https://launchpad.net/~diwic
