Re: [fluid-dev] Re: The 1.1.0 milestone

[jimmy]

> From: Bernat Arlandis i Ma??  <address@hidden>
>
> Right now it's fully functional and equivalent to 1.0.9, I
> didn't want 
> to loose any functionality and it hasn't, but it has broken
> API 
> compatibility.


Great.  Now we should try to determine if the 2.0 API are sensible and 
expandable for future changes.

As for backward compatible API, we can try to determine if it is at all 
possible, to make libfluidsynth-1.x.x wrapper (separate lib) around the 2.0 API 
without having to make 2.0 itself backward compatible.


> I decided to go by myself since there wasn't any active
> contributors 
> interested and it was a bit hard for me to explain in
> detail what I was 
> going to do in advance. I think is still hard to work
> together in the 
> direction I've taken without talking a lot, but there's
> many things that 
> can be done still in the stable branch in parallel.


Fully understandable.

Of course folks who have made changes to 1.0.x who don't want to see their 
changes lost can contribute their diff's and we can gather them up for 1.1.0.  
Everyone understand that 1.x.x is aging and could use different libraries 
(libInstPatch...)  But to spend too much time on the new timer code on 1.x.x 
just for faster than realtime rendering (for some folks, not even other 
projects) is much less productive, IMHO.  Especially these changes are iffy as 
to how flexible the new code may fit into 1.x.x.  I'd rather see such efforts 
spent on how to work the new timer into the 2.x code base.



> Having a new branch with a similar aim to 2.0 is
> meaningless and not 
> that useful because when the two branches differ more and
> more it'll be 
> harder to merge some changes from one to the other. There's
> also some 
> areas where the solution taken for 1.1.0 might not work for
> 2.0, so 
> unless it's something critical we could rather fix issues
> in other areas.


Same thinking here.


> On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 18:06 +0200, David Henningsson
> wrote:
> 
> > > Being one of the people "jumping in", I don't
> know much about Miguel's
> > > fork/branch or the 2.0 branch. That's why I asked
> for some pointers, so
> > > I don't have to read an entire year of messages.


Miguel's CPP implementation (gleamsynth.sf.net) seems to only basic support 
Alsa and Jack driver on Linux when I tried it a couple of months back.  Not 
sure about other platforms since I don't use those.  The major problem for me 
was audio performance, it does seem to have some lags or skipping when I tried 
live-playing.  Although I haven't spent much time with it since.

And I don't think gleamsynth is not API compatible at all with fluidsynth, 
mostly because of data structures.


> I don't mean to be an obstacle for new development, so if
> this sound too 
> restrictive for the new programming forces we should decide
> whether we 
> hold to the old 2.0 plan or refrain from it and start
> another one. You 
> should understand that doing long-term work on a project
> that might 
> shift direction anytime isn't pleasant.
> 
> -- 
> Bernat Arlandis i Mañó


I can see your pain :-(

Jimmy