Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PipeWire Is Making Progress But Still Needs More Time To Mature

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    it is ready for use. some functions can be not ready for use by you
    No, you clearly didn't review the state of the sd_bus manpages, before posting that.

    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    you think somebody else will write documentation for you for free?
    If they put it out there for use, it should be documented for use, like the rest of the userspace stuff out there. It's what I do, whether in open-source software or not. Just because it's free doesn't mean it should be garbage.

    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    when function lacks documentation i read its sources.
    I did. I'm no stranger to this. But, for reasons I've already given, this is not a satisfactory substitute for baseline API docs. ...or even some comments in the header file!

    Please tell us what software you work on, so I can try to avoid it.

    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    what is your problem here?
    It was sloppy stuff by Lennart. Now, it seems to be your troll-posting.
    Last edited by coder; 03 February 2018, 05:38 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    Okay, so sd_bus isn't ready for use?
    it is ready for use. some functions can be not ready for use by you
    though they are ready for use by their current users
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    When will it be?
    when you or somebody else writes man page? i don't know your requirements
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    How will I know?
    check man pages?
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    Lenart blogged about it 2.5 years ago. I take that as a sign he thinks it's ready for use.
    it was ready for collaboration. so you could come in and help write man page for example. or you think somebody else will write documentation for you for free? btw i bet function in question did not exist 2.5 years ago at all
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    Sorry, but that's just poor. It's one thing not to write nice tutorials and other high-level docs that make users feel warm and fuzzy, but it's a mark of poor software development practice if you don't even document your APIs at manpage level (i.e. parameters, returns, errors, and side effects). The API docs are part of the contract.
    what contract did you sign? i use sd_bus without any contract. when function lacks documentation i read its sources. do you insist that they should disallow me to use it because you didn't help them to write docs? or you insist that they should stop further development until you have written docs?
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    I can even describe how the code is currently implemented, but I can't know whether I'm over-specifying it or even documenting a bug as intended behavior.
    don't use that function then, use some other dbus library? what is your problem here?

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    then maybe those functions are not ready yet for being used by you?
    Okay, so sd_bus isn't ready for use? When will it be? How will I know? Lenart blogged about it 2.5 years ago. I take that as a sign he thinks it's ready for use.

    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    or maybe they are just waiting for your pull request with comments and docs?
    Sorry, but that's just poor. It's one thing not to write nice tutorials and other high-level docs that make users feel warm and fuzzy, but it's a mark of poor software development practice if you don't even document your APIs at manpage level (i.e. parameters, returns, errors, and side effects). The API docs are part of the contract.

    I can even describe how the code is currently implemented, but I can't know whether I'm over-specifying it or even documenting a bug as intended behavior. Writing API docs is a fundamental part of writing the API.

    But this thread isn't even about Lenart, so I apologize for adding fuel to that fire.

    Leave a comment:


  • ssokolow
    replied
    My viewpoint is "I have work to get done. My computer isn't someone else's hobby toy." and, whether it's Lennart or the KDE crew (and I say this as a KDE user), some upstreams keep cropping up in the "this got released to the public before it was ready" lists. As a developer, it's your responsibility to make sure that downstreams understand the release-readiness of the software you're putting out.

    KDE x.0 and several releases following have a history of being unstable and feature poor, yet they get shipped and the devs use "Don't blame 4.0. 3.0 and 2.0 were the same way" as if it somehow justified their refusal to properly communicate that they're preview releases and nothing more. Lennart has a similar problem with communication and taking responsibility.

    That said, given your response to both coder and me, It's clear that a discussion won't be productive, so I'm going to bow out here and let you have the last word. As far as I'm concerned, we've agreed to disagree.

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    Not to mention poor docs. Half of the public API functions I've tried to use in systemd have no manpages or even header file comments.
    then maybe those functions are not ready yet for being used by you?
    or maybe they are just waiting for your pull request with comments and docs?

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by ssokolow View Post
    Projects by Lennart have a history of getting very visibly put into production at a stage where they cause end-user regressions and, especially with PulseAudio, the devs then blame bugs in other projects and wash their hands of the matter.
    the bugs were in other project and "the devs" didn't put pulseaudio in broken state in ubuntu, ubuntu devs did that, so only moron would blame "the devs" for other devs failings
    Originally posted by ssokolow View Post
    End users don't care which project's code is actually buggy...
    end users don't care what pulseaudio is and who is its author. when ubuntu is broken, end users blame ubuntu. when someone blames lennart, he is not end user, he is misinformed idiot
    Originally posted by ssokolow View Post
    How is it toxic to say that that a developer who's become somewhat infamous for starting projects with poor release QA and bad PR surrounding the matter is not involved in your project?
    it is very toxic and stupid of you to blame develper for ubuntu failure to qa their releases

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by PedroHLC View Post
    Features low-latency, support alsa, support jack, support gstreamer, will handle bluetooth, pure C without C++, no glib, and lennart isn't involved.
    Wow! It's like utopia becoming reality....
    everything is true for pulseaudio, even lennart now is not involved
    wow it's like some idiot lives in alternative reality

    Leave a comment:


  • scottishduck
    replied
    Originally posted by leiptrstormr View Post

    Kill yourself.
    Another balanced and calm post by the anti-Lennart brigade
    Last edited by scottishduck; 27 January 2018, 07:59 AM. Reason: Spelling mistake

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    More like you post bullshit backed by technical-sounding reasons and refuse to back down when your "technical" arguments are debunked.

    I mean, opinions is one thing, bullshit is another.
    "Refuse to back down"? Eh, this is kind of the problem, isn't it? You can't make someone accept your point. You can make your case, and if they still persist, then there's no reason to continue. The best thing we can hope to achieve is education, and that requires the other parties be receptive to the information you're offering. If so, then some good may come of continuing.

    Once an argument becomes less about the issue & more about ego (hint: usually a sign of this is when the point(s) of contention shift away from the original topic), it's a good sign that irreconcilable differences will surface.

    BTW, if I understand correctly, I'm not a fan of the user-blocking feature. It's an understandable compromise, but discussions quickly break down, as more users start missing more of the conversation. Furthermore, I think misinformation deserves to be answered and potential troll posts should be noted. It is a band-aid solution, at best.

    If someone becomes abusive or otherwise problematic, then mods should step in and coach that person to modify their approach (i.e. pointing out where they crossed lines or made counterproductive moves). When they fail to modify their own behavior, after such guidance, then sanctioning should happen. I like to think of this as constructive moderation. I'm not a fan of highly punitive moderation, because we're all fallible. Leaning too heavily on AI to do the moderation has the very real negative consequence of misfiring and stifling the conversation.

    So, I guess I'm saying "check yourself", before deciding the problem lies entirely with the other. I don't mean to single you out - it goes for us all.

    Leave a comment:


  • polarathene
    replied
    Came to read discussion on the actual PipeWire post, ended up seeing a squabble and just scrolling down the pages looking at usernames rather than comments as it was easier to filter through. Disappointed that there really wasn't much talk at all about the actual post content, derailed hard, be the better community members guys and just don't feed the others, let them believe what they want, avoids this mess. People who might have had some interest in discussion may have bailed before making it to page 3 :\

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X