[Spice-devel] spice-protocol "mess"

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 01/13/2012 12:17 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 05:52:15PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> While looking at spice-protocol git, to see if we should
>> do a spice-protocol-0.10.1 too, I noticed a few
>> unregularities:
>>
>> 1) the 0.10 branch has a commit from Alon called:
>> "add opus playback and record cap", which is not on
>> master
>
> I don't see anything wrong with adding this, since I'm sure we want to
> have opus. That said, it shouldn't have been there and I think I pushed
> it by accident, since I never completed the work on the server and
> client, and so it's of no use right now. (that happened because opus
> uses 48KHz and CELT uses 44.1KHz)

Ok, then I suggest reverting that commit for now. I agree it does
now harm, but it may confuse people into thinking that we do
have opus support...

>
>> 2) master has a commit titled:
>> "Release 0.10.1", but no 0.10.1 tag, and AFAIK we don't
>> have 0.10.1 tarbals yet...
>>
>
> This is the bump for the mini header support.

I understand.

> You call it adventurous,

It feels adventurous to me I've not looked close enough at it to
say it really is. I was using the term adventurous in an attemp to
fish for other peoples opinion on this. But I guess I should be
more direct. So:

Alon, you think getting the mini header code into 0.10.1 (and thus into
the next RHEL release) is a good idea?

Yonit, do you feel that you're code is ready for this?

> I think Yonit did all the tests with the new client and the old one,
> knowing her, but I haven't myself.

I'm sure she did and I wasn't implying the code is untested, just
that it is rather new and as such has not seen testing by many
people under different circumstances.

>
>> So we need to sort this out, I suggest:
>> 1) Adding the "add opus playback and record cap" to
>> master.
>> 2) Cherry picking the 3 commits in master but not in
>> the 0.10 branch into the 0.10 branch
>> 3) creating a 0.10.1 tag on the 0.10 branch
>>
>> I wonder though, are we sure there are no adverse
>> effects of bumping SPICE_VERSION_MINOR to 2? This seems
>> like a bit of a risky chance to make in a 0.10.x
>> release. Are we sure all clients and server versions
>> will grok connecting to / getting a connection from
>> a server / client with a different minor then themselves?
>>
>
> I'm not sure. Someone needs to check.

Right, which is why I called the code adventurous :)

Regards,

Hans