From: Jonathan W. <jw...@ph...> - 2007-12-17 06:05:01
|
> >> I don't know where we are for the other things, e.g. MotU? > > > > I *think* MOTU's looking pretty good although I haven't had a chance to > > extensively test it after the last lot of streaming updates went in. Brief > > tests suggest that it's better than the pre-streaming update code but there > > are a few things I still need to test before I can be sure of this. I > > haven't had time in recent weeks due to a recording gig and preparations for > > that (for which I reverted to a pre-ffado freebob snapshot I know is stable > > for MOTU). Furthermore, I haven't tested an svn version beyond 750 so I > > don't know how those latency issues affect MOTU. > > > > There's a weekend coming and my recording commitments are now finished - I > > will try to get some time to exercise the recent svn versions and see how we > > go. > It would be nice if motu support is ready for this release. I agree. The weekend turned out busier than I expected but I hope to take a look at things during this week. > > Out of interest, what bits are you looking to undo? > Starting from SVN r750 I moved the streaming 1394 code to libieee1394. > This means that I moved IsoStream, IsoHandler and IsoHandlerManager to > libieee1394. This introduced some changes which I expected to be > insignificant, but which seem to have some side-effects. > : > In my opinion the changes make sense, but they did hurt reliability in > one way or another. I sill have to figure that out. Sure. I wonder whether they just added that little bit of extra overhead which tipped things over the edge (so to speak). > >> What are the thoughts? > > > > In principle I think it would be helpful to push a release out before you > > get busy early next year with the caveat that we can show that most known > > issues have been addressed. > > By waiting another 4 months we hurt our credibility. By rolling out bad > code we also do. So I guess we'll have to ship the code we have if it > doesn't have serious flaws, but with the limitations explicitly stated. > The most critical one being the fact that there is no low latency operation. I agree with all these points - in particular we can't afford to wait another 4 months. At the same time we should obviously try hard to minimise the number of limitations. What date were you thinking of for a release? Regards jonathan |