Re: [Jack-Devel] The Situation(s) With JACK
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Geoff Beasley
<[hidden]> wrote:
>> * the JACK 1.0 API must be defined first
>
> hhmm, can i suggest that you consider a name change ? i'm thinking jack 1.0
> isn't going to sufficiently define the new jack and could very well cause
> even more confusion.
this is for an API.
Confusion over what an API is and what an implementation is are one of
the central issues at present.
the point is that there's very little in moving on with anything
drastic until we can at least agree that the JACK API has reached 1.0
by now.
--p
1323462597.11553_0.ltw:2,a <CAFa_cKmKxH4_Dk1=WCCmeKFjMYPNEcpJOZWZTVm6rBSrK3i-hA at mail dot gmail dot com>