[pulseaudio-discuss] About the routing patches

[Arun Raghavan]

On 19 October 2014 17:51, Tanu Kaskinen <tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In Düsseldorf we discussed a bit about the plan regarding the routing
> patches. The situation remains that nobody else than David has looked into
> the patches, and David would rather not merge the patches, because the
> infrastructure alone doesn't solve any problems. The point was repeated that
> it's hard to review the infrastructure if it's not visible how it will be
> used.
>
> The idea of rewriting the infrastructure as a module was brought up. Having
> the code in a module was considered to be easier to accept in upstream, and
> my impression was that everyone thought that would be a good idea. It
> occurred to me later that we didn't actually discuss it in very concrete
> terms how a module-based approach would work better, so let's do it now.
>
> The routing patches that have been written so far are divided into several
> sets. If we imagine that I would have originally put the infrastructure in a
> module, would the patch sets have been accepted to the master branch without
> waiting for more code? Reviewing would have been equally hard, because the
> final picture wouldn't have been available in this case either. Would I have
> got the permission to push the code without any review, or with
> lower-quality review? I guess so, but I'd like to get a confirmation for
> that before I start from scratch again.

Yes, I think the idea would be to get broad review and not nitpick so
much on the concepts which were a concern for David/me to merge into
the core since at least I found it hard to evaluate it without more
context, usage examples, etc.

Regards,
Arun