5 Jun
2010
5 Jun
'10
3:59 p.m.
Le 05/06/10 13:45, Renato a écrit :
On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:18:02 +0200
Philipp<hollunder(a)lavabit.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> this is all about making Linux Audio more useful.
> The idea came about because on the one hand there are parts of Linux
> audio that really need some coders attention and on the other hand
> there are coders who don't know where to start. I realize that there
> never are more than enough coders, so this is mainly about bringing
> attention to the parts that need it the most.
>
> To a degree it's what bug/feature trackers are there for, but those
> are usually per application, and while there are category and priority
> systems in place those are rarely used.
> So what this is also about is bridging a gap between users, developers
> and between applications.
>
> It would be quite simple really.
> An easy to find, central place, possibly a wiki or a tracker.
> Anyone, a user most likely, describes his workflow and what the
> showstopper is. This could be applications not syncing properly, or an
> essential but missing feature. The idea is to tackle mainly
> infrastructure and cross application problems, with the goal to make a
> workflow actually work.
> The user should have to specify all relevant information available,
> such as version information, links, probably some kind of priority or
> urgency indication and how hard he believes it would be.
> He could also put up a reward of sorts, not necessarily monetary.
> Any developer could pick up the task and work on it, possibly leaving
> a notice.
>
> The possible benefits I see are:
> a) A kind of overview of what's needed the most, one place where you
> can see what's actually important to users.
> b) A way to identify and fix problems between applications -
> something I believe is very important for a system that encourages
> the use of multiple applications at once. I believe there are numerous
> synchronisation/transport issues for example which are never really
> tackled, despite this being a very important part of the
> infrastructure. c) Emphasis on actual workflow and usability.
> d) It would work for any program, even those without tracker and those
> that aren't high profile and aren't usually in the center of
> attention.
>
> Could this work? What do you think?
I think that it's a good idea.
One point with trackers is that each ticket must focus on a specific problem.
Respecting this rule is feasible I think, but may be tricky with
interoperability bugs.
As a user, I think this is a great idea - and a much
needed one given
that, as Philipp points out and as we all know, the linux audio system
really works only with multiple interacting applications.
I think it would even be quite easy to set it up.
One feature I believe would be useful is that if I file a "bug"
regarding the interaction of app 1,2 and 3, the relative devs get
automatically mailed and can jump in the discussion
Being able to add link(s) to upstream ticket(s), as in launchpad, could also be
useful.
--
Olivier