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?
>


It's unnecessary to take that route.

Paul has identified significant issues on his part with the codebase for
jack2. It affects others too. Stephane has said he agrees there is room
for adjusting the codebase of jack2 to make it easier for people to work
with who do have problems with the current implementation.

Hence we just have to identify the areas that need to be fixed and make
them easier for everyone to work with. In the process we should end up
with a more powerful system.

As long as someone has time to commit to the refactoring process it's a
win win. We end up with a single codebase that everyone is happy to work
which makes it easier for packaging and we all can move forward.





--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd

1323919441.27174_0.ltw:2,a <39617.203.31.76.254.1323919430.squirrel at boosthardware dot com>