[Spice-devel] spice-protocol "mess"

[Alon Levy]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 01:17:26PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 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...

ok, I'll push a revert commit.

> 
> >
> >>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