Is PulseAudio dead?

[Lennart Poettering]

On Mon, 02.08.10 16:15, Jean-Francois Saucier (jfsaucier at infoglobe.ca) wrote:

> I am a little off this subject personally but would like to express my
> thought on that.
> 
> Knowing that you won't put the time PA need and that you will focus on
> another project for a relatively long period of time, would the ideal
> workflow to follow is to try to find someone to replace you or at least
> tell the world that you won't put anymore time fixing bugs? 

Well, my reading of the situation is different. Neither will I be away
for too long, nor is the amount of bugs actually that bad. If you look
closely a non-trivial number have needinfo set, waiting for the posters
to report back. Substantial amount are duplicate abrt backtraces. There
are some feature requests. A number of bugs cover stuff like HDMI
and auxiliary PA modules which are optional features, which are not
entirely supported on the low-levels or upstream, and hence I don't
think need to be fixed with high-priority. Finally a substantial chunk
is mixer initialization problems, which are kinda time-intensive to
process, because you need the help of the user to run "alsamixer -c0"
and figure out what's actually going on, you need to ask him to play
around with "model=xxx" as param to the HDA module. And usually that
involves quite a bit of forth and back. And furthermore almost always
these actually are issues that need to be fixed in ALSA, not
PA, though I never bothered to reassign them because one needs to verify
this first. (i.e.  either in the HDA driver by adding new quirks or by updating
the mixer init db). Also, these kind of "simple" driver bugs tend to fix
themselves alone, because alsa is updated all the time, and the other
distros work on this too. So a number of these could probably be closed
right-away because a newer ALSA already contains the quirk. 

So, well, I don't think things are really that bad.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.