6 Mar
2004
6 Mar
'04
11:03 a.m.
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 03:26:04 +0100, Tim Goetze wrote:
[Fons Adriaensen]
I'm not opposed to change to ladspa.h, just unnesesary or unwise change
:) As I've said I'b backing mementary and ranomizable, and probably the
NULL buffer thing. Those seem harmless. I'm much less happy about changes
to include enumerations and lantency.
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:56:01PM +0100, Tom
Szilagyi wrote:
thanks. i haven't given up on Steve yet. i admit he's stubborn, but
that simply behooves a good brit. he's also a bright mind, so he'll
realize sooner or later when he's supporting the wrong ideas. I think the "dead end" has just been
reached...
Yes. Steve has made his position very clear: he opposes any change
to ladspa.h. Much as I respect Steve for all his contributions to
Linux Audio, I think this is misguided and I do not share his
opinion on what is 'meta' and what is not (and I sort of enjoyed
Tim's posting an this subject). unfortunately, his support for the ladspa 1.1 default
value hack back
in the day has shown that 'sooner or later' sometimes means 'after the
milk has been spilled'.
Yes, that and the ill-fated non-realtime extension - it showed me how
easy it is to misjudge to consequences of spec changes.
If you look back through the archives you'l see that my attitude changed
form "yay, more features, cram them in" (luckily rained in by Paul and
Richard) to a more considered attitude.
(my apologies offered, Steve, for this rude, amateur
public attempt at
understanding your motives.)
Heh, all good fun :)
- Steve