On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 01:17:26PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 01/13/2012 12:17 PM, Alon Levy wrote: > >On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 05:52:15PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > >>Hi, > >> > >>While looking at spice-protocol git, to see if we should > >>do a spice-protocol-0.10.1 too, I noticed a few > >>unregularities: > >> > >>1) the 0.10 branch has a commit from Alon called: > >>"add opus playback and record cap", which is not on > >>master > > > >I don't see anything wrong with adding this, since I'm sure we want to > >have opus. That said, it shouldn't have been there and I think I pushed > >it by accident, since I never completed the work on the server and > >client, and so it's of no use right now. (that happened because opus > >uses 48KHz and CELT uses 44.1KHz) > > Ok, then I suggest reverting that commit for now. I agree it does > now harm, but it may confuse people into thinking that we do > have opus support...
ok, I'll push a revert commit. > > > > >>2) master has a commit titled: > >>"Release 0.10.1", but no 0.10.1 tag, and AFAIK we don't > >>have 0.10.1 tarbals yet... > >> > > > >This is the bump for the mini header support. > > I understand. > > >You call it adventurous, > > It feels adventurous to me I've not looked close enough at it to > say it really is. I was using the term adventurous in an attemp to > fish for other peoples opinion on this. But I guess I should be > more direct. So: > > Alon, you think getting the mini header code into 0.10.1 (and thus into > the next RHEL release) is a good idea? > > Yonit, do you feel that you're code is ready for this? > > >I think Yonit did all the tests with the new client and the old one, > >knowing her, but I haven't myself. > > I'm sure she did and I wasn't implying the code is untested, just > that it is rather new and as such has not seen testing by many > people under different circumstances. > > > > >>So we need to sort this out, I suggest: > >>1) Adding the "add opus playback and record cap" to > >>master. > >>2) Cherry picking the 3 commits in master but not in > >>the 0.10 branch into the 0.10 branch > >>3) creating a 0.10.1 tag on the 0.10 branch > >> > >>I wonder though, are we sure there are no adverse > >>effects of bumping SPICE_VERSION_MINOR to 2? This seems > >>like a bit of a risky chance to make in a 0.10.x > >>release. Are we sure all clients and server versions > >>will grok connecting to / getting a connection from > >>a server / client with a different minor then themselves? > >> > > > >I'm not sure. Someone needs to check. > > Right, which is why I called the code adventurous :) > > Regards, > > Hans _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel