[pulseaudio-discuss] review+pull-request: Passthrough support

[Arun Raghavan]

On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 09:25 +0100, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> 'Twas brillig, and Arun Raghavan at 02/05/11 07:49 did gyre and gimble:
> >> > In e193c2bf55326a48e2297bcacadc9d1848a40d7d and
> >> > 948d0f19bef353208ffb5b1b8c520b6b489b94a6
> >> > 
> >> > Can you make sure that pactl and pacmd stay as in-sync as possible?
> > I held off because I thought that pacmd was going to be dropped before
> > too long. Is this not the case? Sink port information seems to have not
> > been added, I'll sync that as well if required.
> 
> Hmm, not sure. Ideally I'd prefer to just have one tool and only add to
> pacmd the things that cannot easily be done via the protocol, but I'm
> not sure of the overall strategy.
> 
> I'll add this to the discussion points for Saturday's chat.

Was this discussed? Any news?

> >> > In bb7cc499f1815de1c90b0ef1850152224df96ff9
> >> > 
> >> > I don't see why this asserts in the current form nor what has actually
> >> > changed.
> > It should not assert since we want to gracefully fail (that is the
> > original code should not have been an assert).
> 
> I still don't see any asserts in the original code. The only difference
> I can see is that a pa_log_debug() is not printed... (the log message
> says the word "Assertion" but it doesn't actually assert AFAICT...)
> 
> This might be intended (i.e. don't print the log message), but if that's
> the case the commit message is still wrong to mention asserts...

Ah, I see what you mean. Commit message amended.

> >> > General Question:
> >> > 
> >> > Has this broken tunnels? (we manage to do this quite often with stream
> >> > protocol changes...
> > Indeed, it does. I've put fixing this on my TODO list. Will try to get
> > to it soon.
> 
> Cool, thanks :)

Done and pushed to my tree. :)

Cheers,
Arun