Re: [Jack-Devel] The Situation(s) With JACK

On Wed, December 14, 2011 7:55 am, Paul Davis wrote:
> i don't think that *anyone* believes that the C code
> base of JACK1 is an appropriate thing to keep developing.
>  certainly I do not.

The referenced message was probably the most concise I have seen so far
regarding JACK1.

Going from the other direction, what is lost by just saying that Grame is
now the maintainer of JACK, and even though JACK1 developers do not
particularly like working on the JACK2 code, they just punt and let
Stephane et al. implement any future changes.

Have there been any API changes except for the latency changes in the last
couple of years?  Are any additional changes currently planned?  Is there
any reason that for future changes the implementation of the changes could
not just be left to the JACK2 developers, while the (previous) JACK1
developers just concentrate on application development?

-- 
Chris Caudle

1323918373.11300_0.ltw:2,a <2341eb8367fc4441f179f2d7ce5fe757.squirrel at email dot powweb dot com>