[pulseaudio-discuss] Freeze soon?

David Henningsson david.henningsson at canonical.com
Thu Mar 21 01:10:23 PDT 2013

On 03/21/2013 08:05 AM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-21 at 05:40 +0100, David Henningsson wrote:
>> On 03/20/2013 04:45 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> The target release date for 4.0 is 2013-04-18 (assuming 4-month release
>>> cycle), and that date is less than a month away. It's time to freeze
>>> soon. I propose 2013-03-28 as the freeze date - that would leave us 3
>>> weeks to polish the release.
>> Well, we should first release 3.1 with the stuff in the stable-3.x
>> branch. I think that can be done right away.
> OK. I guess it's mostly up to Arun to do that.
>> Other than that, I don't think I have any bigger objections. I would
>> like to push the buffer patches posted yesterday together with something
>> that documents maxlength as being okay to set in low-latency scenarios.
>> I could write that documentation patch this week if you can do some review.
> I can.
>> Providing "real underrun" callbacks (which the drain patch lays the
>> foundations for) would probably have to wait until a later release.
> Yep. BTW, I have forgotten why we need "real underrun" notifications. Is
> the application expected to do something different on real underruns
> than on stream buffer underruns?

IMO, it's the current underflow messages that are useless. According to 
the notes we however agreed to to add a new callback rather than 
replacing the current one.

Anyway, VLC once used an underflow as a sign that audio/video needed 
resynchronisation. Finding out that the underflow callback in most cases 
wasn't a real underrun, they chose to ignore the underflow instead, just 
like most other applications out there do.

>> Are we in the midst of something w r t to any other area, such as bluez?
> I don't think so.

David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd.

More information about the pulseaudio-discuss mailing list