Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations | From | SF Markus Elfring <> | Date | Tue, 28 Nov 2017 13:33:48 +0100 |
| |
>> It seems then that you can not get the kind of information you might be looking for >> at the moment from me (alone). > > No, the patch itself speaks.
Are we still trying to clarify (only) two possible update steps for this software module?
> If you get more reviewed-by from others, it means already it's safer > to apply. Then I can take it.
How are the statistics for such tags in the sound subsystem?
> But without that, it's obviously no material to take.
Thanks for such an explanation of your current view.
>> I hope that mailing list readers could offer something. > > Let's hope.
Are any additional communication interfaces helpful?
>> Did this software module become “too old”? > > Mostly the hardware is too old,
Which time frames have you got in mind for acceptable software maintenance?
> or the change itself isn't interesting enough.
This is another general possibility.
>> Can higher level transformation patterns become easier to accept >> by any other means? > > Only if it's assured to work and not to break anything else.
Have you got any steps in mind for an improved “feeling” or “assurance”?
>> How much does the omission of such an useful development tool >> influence your concerns? > > Can't judge unless I really see / use it.
I find that there are some options to consider.
>> Would you like to improve the software situation in any ways there? > > I *hope*, but only when it's not too annoying.
Under which circumstances are you going to start working with a continuous integration system?
Regards, Markus
| |