On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 16:57 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > 09.09.2014 17:22, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > > More details are in the wiki: > > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/PulseAudio/Events/2014_Dusseldorf/ > > > > We don't yet have discussion topics for the miniconference, so if you > > plan to attend, topic ideas would be very welcome! Send them to the > > list, and I'll collect them to the wiki. > > > > If you have any questions or comments, feel free to send them to the > > list or privately to me. > > [please treat all of the below as wishlist items] > > I told David that I will be able to discuss extraction of low > frequencies into the LFE channel with him only after discussing the > general channel remixer framework with Tanu. Here I mean Tanu's response > to my point 4 in > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pulseaudio-discuss/2014-February/019978.html > . Tanu, if you can prepare anything on this topic (e.g. a mocked-up C > header file or a list of ideas that I missed), that would be great. I can elaborate on my thoughts at some point already before the meeting. We can then discuss the ideas on the mailing list or in the meeting. > It would also be nice to hear any updates or see any small demos about > routing and volumes. Maybe this can solve the stalled status of the > patches on this topic. Personally, I don't review them because I don't > see the whole picture. Note that even if you would review them, so far the sentiment has been that the patches should not be merged at least until I write a routing module that is useful for Gnome. Only David has voiced his opinion on this, though, but perhaps David is the only one who can have an informed opinion anyway, since nobody else has looked at the patches... I can give a status overview, and demonstrate what the current routing patches achieve (not much, as they're mostly just infrastructure and refactoring). We can then discuss what should happen in order to get those patches merged. As for the volume stuff, that work is not stalled. There are related things that I'd be happy to discuss, though: for example, the concept of audio groups. > Then, because of the DSP topic, I would like to see if anyone has any > thoughts on the plan to get rid of filter sinks. According to the > comment at https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61880 such plan > indeed exists, but there were no volunteers so far. The fact that the > best way to handle DSP tasks now is via virtual sinks also seems to make > Arun unhappy: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83557#c5 Will add to the topic list. I guess the most important question is that can we find a volunteer to do the work, though. Some kind of a filter system has been on many people's whishlist for years. If the situation stays such that nobody's going to do anything about this, it's perhaps not a good idea to spend too much time going through people's visions of how a filter system should be implemented. > And, with very very low priority because of the risk to make people fed > up by me beating the same topic on two miniconfs, I want to discuss a > mixed technical + social issue. We have zero virtual sinks with a > correct rewind implementation, and also had a submission of > module-xrdp-sink with a rewind implementation even though having no > rewind support would have been better in that case. I don't completely > understand why this happens, and would like to hear what technical and > social measures (e.g. wiki content or comments in the code or whatever > else) would help people avoid writing incorrect code here. Will add to the topic list. -- Tanu
