On 11-06-18 20:21, Anton Lundin wrote:
On 04 June, 2018 - Dirk Hohndel wrote:
I don't have an outstanding patch from you, so not sure what you are referring
to.
There was a diff a while back in this thread, in
20180523144751.gc12...@hirohito.acc.umu.se , which made the code fall
back to the voted/averaged ppo2 instead of reporting individual sensors
if we couldn't find sane calibration values.
Jef didn't like it, but I think its a step to a better place than where
we're right now, and as far as I've read it, both Davide and Martin who
is affected agrees.
Anyway, now when I'm back on solid ground (I still feel the waves in my
legs) I might get around to making up a commit message and formating it
as a patch.
It's not that I really disliked the patch. I just wanted to point out that it
introduces a possible disambiguity in the sense that in the application you no
longer know which type of ppo2 you are getting (voted or sensor). I would rather
go for a solution that indicates the type. That's exactly what's on my (long)
todo list.
But I'm fine with your patch as an interim solution as well. Btw, an alternative
could be to always deliver both the voted *and* the sensor ppO2. Then you know
for sure that the first value is always the voted value, and the remaining ones
(if present) are the sensor ones.
Jef
_______________________________________________
subsurface mailing list
subsurface@subsurface-divelog.org
http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
