On 2016-02-04 12:50, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 11:35 +0100, David Henningsson wrote: >> >> On 2016-02-04 08:47, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: >>> 04.02.2016 10:45, David Henningsson пиÑ?еÑ?: >>>> 6b) It seems non-trivial, and I have a gut feeling it will break some >>>> other use case, that neither of us is thinking about right now. >>> >>> Based on our past experience here, I agree. > > This same point can equally well be made for David's proposal, though. > >>>> 6c) I realize neither of 6a) or 6b) are particularly strong arguments >>>> against actually fixing a problem... >>> >>> I think here you meant "trying to fix". >>> >>> I also think the real problem here is to convince others that you have >>> indeed fixed the original problem :) so for me 6b is strong enough. >>> >> >> Internal speakers toggle between "no" and "unknown" today; i e, when you >> unplug your headphones, internal speakers go to "unknown" rather than >> "yes". This somewhat indicates that speakers are now available, but you >> did not make an active choice to use them. > > Here's a plausible use case that will break in a very annoying way with > your proposal and doesn't break with my proposal: let's say that the > user prefers to use headphones when they are plugged in, and the > internal speakers when the headphones are not plugged in, and never the > HDMI output. Now whenever headphones are disconnected, the routing > logic that you propose will choose the HDMI output, because it has > higher priority than the internal speakers. With my proposal the system > remembers that the internal speakers are the preferred output port of > the sound card (which is actually a misrepresentation of the user's > intent, because the user prefers the headphones over the internal > speakers, but luckily that issue is masked by the speakers becoming > unavailable when the headphones are plugged in). Okay, that makes sense. Scratch my proposal. -- David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd. https://launchpad.net/~diwic
