[linux-dvb] [ANNOUNCE] DVB API improvements
mrechberger at gmail.com
Thu Sep 25 04:49:36 CEST 2008
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 4:47 AM, Michael Krufky <mkrufky at linuxtv.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Markus Rechberger
> <mrechberger at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:41 PM, VDR User <user.vdr at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
>>> <mchehab at infradead.org> wrote:
>>>> The decision were already taken by the group.
>>>> It should be noticed also that the public announcement took some time to
>>>> be ready, since we all carefully reviewed it to reflect the understanding
>>>> that the group had.
>>>> Both API's work, and people needed to choose between one of the proposals.
>>>> Each one there had enough time to read and understand each proposal, since
>>>> the patches were available more than one week before the meeting, and
>>>> everybody were aware that the decision are scheduled to happen during LPC.
>>>> Each one voted based on their own technical analysis, on a meeting that
>>>> took about 2:30 hours, on the day after the presentations. People had
>>>> enough time there to discuss, explain their ideas with the help of a
>>>> whiteboard, decide and improve the proposal.
>>>> S2API was choosen, since it was considered the better proposal for
>>>> everybody there. None of the presents voted for Multiproto.
>>>> Now that the decision were already taken, it is not time anymore to argue
>>>> in favor to any other proposals. We need to move ahead and finally add
>>>> support for DVB-S2 and the remaining missing digital TV's at kernel.
>>>> Thank you and everyone else involved on adding support for the missing
>>>> Let's move to the next step: finally add API changes and drivers for
>>>> DVB-S2 and prepare support for the remaining missing standards.
>>> It's no secret to anyone that there has been foul play, and blatantly
>>> clear there is bias against Manu himself, and multiproto as a result,
>>> based on personal differences & past conflicts. You can't possibly
>>> expect the dvb community to believe a fair & balanced meeting took
>>> place to discuss these proposals when half the people there already
>>> signed on for s2api, and the other half don't have the knowledge &
>>> experience with dvb to make well-informed decisions. You can't
>>> possibly think people will believe any of you (who've openly admitted
>>> support for s2api) spent 2 seconds defending multiproto, or even
>>> assessing the proposal from an unbias technical standpoint.
>>> It's very convenient that you've completely ignored multiple requests
>>> for more in-depth details that actually prove your points have real
>>> technical merit and aren't just the result of some self-interest
>>> politics and b.s. Yet, you had no problem writing paragraphs about
>>> how the decision has been made and everyone should just accept it.
>>> Sorry, people aren't going to just accept it because this whole thing
>>> has been tainted by misleading people, misrepresenting the truth, and
>>> sometimes flat out lying.
>>> Valuable members of the community have turned, and are turning away
>>> because of how poorly dvb has been maintained, and how self-serving
>>> some people act. I'm thankful that more people are being exposed &
>>> becoming aware of what's been going on in hopes that at the very least
>>> some kind of steps will be taken to stop the misuse & abuse of power
>>> at the front of the dvb train.
>>> Again, if there is truth to your claims that s2api is the best
>>> technical solution, then convince us all by providing tangible proof
>>> rather then expecting everyone to take your word for it while ignoring
>>> our requests for such information. You have an obligation to the
>>> community to justify your actions, and be held accountable for them.
>> There hasn't been much positive feedback here! How about let's talk to split the
>> v4l and dvb development in order to not give Mauro the full authority
>> over the whole
>> 2 subsystems where he hardly anything contributed (to the second part).
>> Don't see this as a flamewar, Andrew Morton and a few others are
>> following that discussion now.
>> Mauro as for you try to justify your step technically, the only point
>> we've seen for now was from
>> Patrick Boettcher (which was a good one from his side) but also the
>> other involved people (within that
>> 8 people group in Portland should point out their opinion and
>> technical objections/reasons now).
>> Officially it looks like you had 3 people supporting the Stevens
>> proposal and 5 people who didn't know about
>> the framework at all and explaining them that the DVB-S2 step is the
>> better one to go whereas you had
>> noone representing the multiproto path. Such a vote is highly doubtful then.
>> Hans Hverkuil:
>> I saw you in IRC that you support that proposal please also state out
>> your opinion and/or ask your questions
>> what/why things have been done like they are done in the multiproto
>> tree and why you don't support it.
>> It finally can really end up with a good solution either multiproto or
>> S2 but everyone should understand and not only
>> a few people.
> After over two years, a decision has been made. Up until now, many
> people have been unhappy. Now less people can be unhappy. An
> extension to the api has been merged, and now we can move forward.
> There have been enough debates on the mailing lists to date, and there
> is enough information available about each proposal and all of the
> details surrounding them. We need not hash this out again here.
> Nobody wants to debate this any more -- a better use of our time is to
> start working on userspace applications for the new supported
> standards. Please redirect your energy towards something creative.
> Make love, not war.
sure state out technical reasons and that's what it is about otherwise
a serious split should happen asap.
I personally invite you to be the first one here!
More information about the linux-dvb