Re: [E-devel] sound api "plan"

[Rafael A. <ant...@pr...>]

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Tom Hacohen
<tom...@pa...> wrote:
>
> On 09/11/11 16:16, Mike Blumenkrantz wrote:
> > I'm fairly certain that his objection is not to the API or features it
> > introduces, but for the timetable and lack of PUBLIC review for such a huge
> > patch. You continue to claim that "it's tiny" and "it only affects you if you
> > are using the features it introduces". Both of these are false claims which
> > have been disproved by me and others.
> > We have less than two weeks until the 1.1 release. Prior to this addition, EFL
> > and Edje were considered by everyone in the community be stable and in good
> > shape. This is no longer the case, and I'm sure there are many others aside
> > from Vincent who would agree with this sentiment.
> >
>
> I concur.

Agreed.

> > I vote that the sound API and all related commits be reverted immediately and
> > pushed off until after 1.1. Regardless of your expertise on sound
> > implementations and how solid you may claim it to be, this feature CANNOT be
> > tested sufficiently to meet EFL quality standards before the release. That alone
> > should be enough to have ensured that it was never committed in the first
> > place, other breakages notwithstanding.
> >
>
> No idea what needs to be done about it, but the current situation is
> indeed problematic.

I think that Gustavo's idea of releasing Edje again soon after this
release, just to include this sound API, would solve the problem,
right? What would be a good reason for not doing that?

We already have a different version for eet, keeping that for edje too
shouldn't be much pain...

--
Rafael Antognolli
ProFUSION embedded systems
http://profusion.mobi