lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations
From
Date
>> 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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-28 13:35    [W:0.068 / U:7.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site