octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: gsoc2013 octave audio system


From: Doug Stewart
Subject: Re: gsoc2013 octave audio system
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:05:19 -0400

I agree with John Swensen.
You haven't seen much from me because of this very issue!!
Doug 


On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:52 PM, John Swensen <address@hidden> wrote:

On Apr 17, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:

> On 17 April 2013 15:24, Vytautas Jancauskas <address@hidden> wrote:
>> The repository is here https://bitbucket.org/bucket_brigade/octave-sound
>
> Ideally, you should fix the existing playaudio functions under
> scripts/audio in Octave and you should work with our own source code.
> Your commitment to long-term involvement Octave will be more evident
> if you read our source code, use our build tools, and contribute back
> to our existing codebase. I was envisioning this project as fixing the
> existing playaudio functions in core Octave. Have you at least read
> those functions and realised why they are so poorly implemented?
>
>> I added basic playback using portaudios blocking mode. It will only
>> work if you have pulseaudio on your system since it looks for "pulse"
>> device.
>
> What's the point of using portaudio and then tying it to pulse? I was
> hoping that using portaudio wouldn't even make you consider doing
> something like this. Perhaps portaudio isn't the best choice, if you
> still have to do things like this.
>
>> You need portaudio19 headers at least. This is just something
>> to get my feet a little wet. Compile by running scons.
>
> Scons? Why? We use autotools here. If you need help figuing out a
> basic autoconf file, you can look at other OF packages and their
> configure.ac files.
>
> - Jordi G. H.

Give the guy a break.  He has barely started getting interested in Octave and tries to whip up a quick test along the lines of what he thinks the best solution is and gets blasted by you for using the toolchain he is most comfortable with and for an incomplete solution.  He has been working on this for all of one day, you can't expect a full solution.  To be frank, Jordi, your treatment of others on this list has been putting me off a bit lately also.  It is not a big wonder that newbies don't stick around when they are trying to start learning how to hack on Octave and get ridiculed on the maintainers list for relatively insignificant things.

If you have read The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric Raymond, one of the first principles he talks about is that a large part of open source software is scratching your own personal itch. Implementing the new audio interface is clearly his itch and who cares if he wants to completely scrap the old package and start anew?  If the new solution is better, what is the difference.  I rip out whole chunks of my own code regularly and re-implement, rather than trying to hack on and obsolete and horrendous existing code base.

John Swensen




--
DAS

https://linuxcounter.net/user/206392.html

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]