[linux-dvb] DVB API update
stoth at hauppauge.com
Mon Sep 17 23:55:31 CEST 2007
Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007, Manu Abraham wrote:
>> The problem is that, after making something experimental, throwing it
>> out to application authors stating here it is: the API update, again a
>> fix to the API will make anyone furious, nobody wants to keep tinkering
>> forever on the same thing.
> Exactly, that's why I blocked your initial attempt to merge the
> DVB-S2 API extensions. *That* it was experimental code (even
> completely untested).
> But after all the discussions, and you and Steve have written
> drivers which I hope prove the API as working, why do you
> still think it is experimental? What would it take to make
> it non-experimental?
My take on the patches is this:
However, it's been experimental for about a year and it's not getting
traction, I've said this before on the ML - it needs to be driven. I've
been pinging Manu recently to put up a tree on linuxtv.org/hg, merged
with the latest v4l-dvb tree so people like myself can start testing,
breaking and patching the tree.
No tree = no testers = no discussion = no review = no merge = no support
I want to help start the ball rolling.
People are mailing me directly for HVR4000 support. They are offering to
test trees and I have nothing to give them. The HVR4000 patches are
probably nearly a year old. These people would be more than willing to
highlight bugs, I'm more than willing to help provide patches and drive
this patch to its natural conclusion, along with the Ack of all the
other devs... to a merge.
> I really don't think there is any problem in releasing API version 3.3
> with DVB-S2 support now, then 3.4 with DVB-H, then 3.5 with DVB-T2 etc.
> And I think it would be wrong to delay DVB-S2 support until you
> have all of DVB-H, DVB-T2, etc. properly hammered out.
>> Had a discussion with Steven too on this, since he has a driver as well.
>> Why this is experimental ? I guess you get all the answers from within
>> this mail itself.
> I wish you'd just stop with all those private discussions and instead
> keep it on the list all the time. That way everyone would have all
> the relevant information, which is one of the key points of doing
> Open Source development: spreading not just the code but also the
> knowledge about the technology. mrec isn't completely wrong when he says
> that this list gives the appearance of a closed, elitist circle where
> everything interesting happens in backrooms.
That's a little harsh Johannes. :)
I contacted Manu privately and offered to help him with the patch. Why?
Because whenever I've tried to debate or encourage this via the ML it's
gone nowhere. The ML is only useful to a point, then it's meaningless
and 1-to-1 communication is required.
However, I take your point, I suspect testing, patching and judgement
from the apps guys will likely occur via this ML.
More information about the linux-dvb