Merge multiproto tree
Hello Mauro,
Please pull from http://jusst.de/hg/multiproto_api_merge/
to merge the following Changesets from the multiproto tree.
8876
8875
8874
8873
8872
8871
8870
8869
8868
8867
8866
8865
8864
8863
8862
8861
8860
8859
8858
8857
8856
8855
8854
8853
8852
8851
8850
8849
8848
8847
8846
The tree is being pushed out, it might take a little while for the repository to be populated due to the slow connect.
Regards,
Manu
Quoted 37 lines · Manu Abraham
Hello Mauro,
Please pull from http://jusst.de/hg/multiproto_api_merge/
to merge the following Changesets from the multiproto tree.8876
8875
8874
8873
8872
8871
8870
8869
8868
8867
8866
8865
8864
8863
8862
8861
8860
8859
8858
8857
8856
8855
8854
8853
8852
8851
8850
8849
8848
8847
8846
Quoted 2 lines
The tree is being pushed out, it might take a little while for the repository to be populated due to the slow connect.
This must absolutely be the least informative pull request ever!
Quoted 38 lines · Peter Zijlstra
Quoted 37 lines · Manu Abraham
Hello Mauro,
Please pull from http://jusst.de/hg/multiproto_api_merge/
to merge the following Changesets from the multiproto tree.8876
8875
8874
8873
8872
8871
8870
8869
8868
8867
8866
8865
8864
8863
8862
8861
8860
8859
8858
8857
8856
8855
8854
8853
8852
8851
8850
8849
8848
8847
8846
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
The tree is being pushed out, it might take a little while for the repository to be populated due to the slow connect.
This must absolutely be the least informative pull request ever!
Agreed. Hopefully Mauro knows what this is about!
Willy
[dropped linux-dvb]
Quoted 10 lines · Peter Zijlstra
Quoted 7 lines · Manu Abraham
Hello Mauro,
Please pull from http://jusst.de/hg/multiproto_api_merge/
to merge the following Changesets from the multiproto tree.The tree is being pushed out, it might take a little while for the repository to be populated due to the slow connect.
This must absolutely be the least informative pull request ever!
Also, this:
Quoted 4 lines · On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 14:24 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at [email protected].
Don't do that!
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 30.08.2008, 14:40 +0200 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
Quoted 16 lines
[dropped linux-dvb]
Quoted 10 lines · Peter Zijlstra
Quoted 7 lines · Manu Abraham
Hello Mauro,
Please pull from http://jusst.de/hg/multiproto_api_merge/
to merge the following Changesets from the multiproto tree.The tree is being pushed out, it might take a little while for the repository to be populated due to the slow connect.
This must absolutely be the least informative pull request ever!
Also, this:
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines · On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 14:24 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at [email protected].
Don't do that!
I still try to understand it until today too,
but the latter is only a simple notifier, that you are not subscribed and has no further meanings.
Cheers,
Hermann
Quoted 25 lines · hermann pitton
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 30.08.2008, 14:40 +0200 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
Quoted 22 lines
[dropped linux-dvb]
Quoted 10 lines · Peter Zijlstra
Quoted 7 lines · Manu Abraham
Hello Mauro,
Please pull from http://jusst.de/hg/multiproto_api_merge/
to merge the following Changesets from the multiproto tree.The tree is being pushed out, it might take a little while for the repository to be populated due to the slow connect.
This must absolutely be the least informative pull request ever!
Also, this:
Quoted 4 lines · On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 14:24 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at [email protected].
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Don't do that!
I still try to understand it until today too,
but the latter is only a simple notifier, that you are not subscribed and has no further meanings.
I know full well what that is. However,
Its rude to cross-post with a subscriber only list. Imagine everybody doing it - you'd go mad with these stupid bounces.
Am Montag, den 01.09.2008, 06:08 +0200 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
Quoted 31 lines · hermann pitton
Quoted 30 lines
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 30.08.2008, 14:40 +0200 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
Quoted 16 lines
[dropped linux-dvb]
Quoted 10 lines · Peter Zijlstra
Quoted 7 lines · Manu Abraham
Hello Mauro,
Please pull from http://jusst.de/hg/multiproto_api_merge/
to merge the following Changesets from the multiproto tree.The tree is being pushed out, it might take a little while for the repository to be populated due to the slow connect.
This must absolutely be the least informative pull request ever!
Also, this:
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines · On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 14:24 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at [email protected].
Don't do that!
I still try to understand it until today too,
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
but the latter is only a simple notifier, that you are not subscribed and has no further meanings.
I know full well what that is. However,
Its rude to cross-post with a subscriber only list. Imagine everybody doing it - you'd go mad with these stupid bounces.
Why not going one step further then?
Every in kernel driver should have an open list.
I believe it can avoid a lot of troubles.
People can still decide to go private, but might think twice before doing so.
Hermann
Quoted 4 lines · Manu Abraham
Hello Mauro,
Please pull from http://jusst.de/hg/multiproto_api_merge/
to merge the following Changesets from the multiproto tree.
Is it a complete up to date tree (like lipliandvb which contains a real working solution for HVR-4000) ?
Even with limited support, multiproto is good to finally have in kernel :-)
Signature · 10 lines
Grégoire FAVRE http://picasaweb.google.com/Gregoire.Favre http://gregoire.favre.googlepages.com/ http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A9tiquette http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list [email protected] http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Hello, Manu,
Quoted 4 lines · Manu Abraham
Hello Mauro,
Please pull from http://jusst.de/hg/multiproto_api_merge/
to merge the following Changesets from the multiproto tree.
The need for supporting newer DTV protocols increases day by day, since when the first multiproto proposal started to be discussed, about two years ago.
At the end of the last year, Steven send one email to the ML with a different API proposal. Yet, people decided to wait for your work to be done. People then pinged you, from time to time, asking about the completion of multiproto. All the times, your answer were that multiproto were not ready yet for production.
I'm aware that your solution seems to be more code-complete than Steven's proposal.
But the recent activity on the mailing list regarding his idea (and its, so far, positive feedback) and the fact that I was anyway planning to have a discussion about the future of the DVB-API at the Linux Plumbers Conference 2008 are supporting me in my idea of post-poning such a pull to a point in time shortly after this event.
Cheers,
Mauro
_______________________________________________
linux-dvb mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
At the risk of getting into this thing, I must admit I didn't know about these rivalries on the list.
I have only followed the production of multiproto for the past 6 months, not as a developer but as someone who just wants to get his DVB-S2 card going.
You say a lot of people back this new API-idea, but I honestly can't wait another 2 years to get proper support for my card. Am I wrong into thinking that, should multiproto be merged today, major applications will start to really support it long before this new api will get finalised?
I believe Manu also shot down the theory that multiproto wouldn't be able to support future modulations?
It might be so that designing a whole new api might be easier for these new standards in the future, but haven't we waited long enough? If it's true what Manu's saying, tweaking multiproto to handle these new standards wouldn't be that hard, and since there is no hardware for these new modulations anyway, shouldn't dvb-s2 get some priority?
/Met vriendelijke groeten,/
*Jelle De Loecker*
Kipdola Studios - Tomberg
Mauro Carvalho Chehab schreef:
Quoted 20 lines
Hello, Manu,
Quoted 5 lines · Manu Abraham
Hello Mauro,
Please pull from http://jusst.de/hg/multiproto_api_merge/
to merge the following Changesets from the multiproto tree.The need for supporting newer DTV protocols increases day by day, since when the first multiproto proposal started to be discussed, about two years ago.
At the end of the last year, Steven send one email to the ML with a different API proposal. Yet, people decided to wait for your work to be done. People then pinged you, from time to time, asking about the completion of multiproto. All the times, your answer were that multiproto were not ready yet for production.
I'm aware that your solution seems to be more code-complete than Steven's proposal.
But the recent activity on the mailing list regarding his idea (and its, so far, positive feedback) and the fact that I was anyway planning to have a discussion about the future of the DVB-API at the Linux Plumbers Conference 2008 are supporting me in my idea of post-poning such a pull to a point in time shortly after this event.
Quoted 8 lines
Cheers,
Mauro_______________________________________________
linux-dvb mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
_______________________________________________
linux-dvb mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Quoted 8 lines · Mauro Carvalho Chehab
I'm aware that your solution seems to be more code-complete than Steven's proposal.
But the recent activity on the mailing list regarding his idea (and its, so far, positive feedback) and the fact that I was anyway planning to have a discussion about the future of the DVB-API at the Linux Plumbers Conference 2008 are supporting me in my idea of post-poning such a pull to a point in time shortly after this event.
I understand peoples frustration in waiting for multiproto since I'm one of them as well. However, I believe the support for Steven's proposal is largely because people aren't aware that multiproto is now in a ready-state and has a pull request pending. Over the last several months I've seen many question when/if multiproto will be done, or if it is dead... I think we all agree that it has taken quite some time for multiproto to get to a point where it's ready but that time has come.
Multiproto -can- be pulled in right now, and if that happened, drivers could be written immediately, finally providing users with what they've needed for so long. In my opinion it makes no sense to throw out a robust api that is ready right now just because of frustration and past personal grudges (whether anyone will openly admit to this or not, it -is- a part of this). The questions for consideration -should be-... Is the code ready? Can it handle future specs? Is it missing anything that should be included? If the code is ready and is robust, then the final question is what benefit is there in making people wait yet longer for another api to be written? Will this new api proposal offer anything that multiproto doesn't already?
It seems we can finally move forward and now instead of incomplete code stopping it, politics are.
_______________________________________________
linux-dvb mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Quoted 32 lines · VDR User
Quoted 8 lines · Mauro Carvalho Chehab
I'm aware that your solution seems to be more code-complete than Steven's proposal.
But the recent activity on the mailing list regarding his idea (and its, so far, positive feedback) and the fact that I was anyway planning to have a discussion about the future of the DVB-API at the Linux Plumbers Conference 2008 are supporting me in my idea of post-poning such a pull to a point in time shortly after this event.
I understand peoples frustration in waiting for multiproto since I'm one of them as well. However, I believe the support for Steven's proposal is largely because people aren't aware that multiproto is now in a ready-state and has a pull request pending. Over the last several months I've seen many question when/if multiproto will be done, or if it is dead... I think we all agree that it has taken quite some time for multiproto to get to a point where it's ready but that time has come.
Multiproto -can- be pulled in right now, and if that happened, drivers could be written immediately, finally providing users with what they've needed for so long. In my opinion it makes no sense to throw out a robust api that is ready right now just because of frustration and past personal grudges (whether anyone will openly admit to this or not, it -is- a part of this). The questions for consideration -should be-... Is the code ready? Can it handle future specs? Is it missing anything that should be included? If the code is ready and is robust, then the final question is what benefit is there in making people wait yet longer for another api to be written? Will this new api proposal offer anything that multiproto doesn't already?
Quoted 8 lines
It seems we can finally move forward and now instead of incomplete code stopping it, politics are.
_______________________________________________
linux-dvb mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
If what VDR User and Jelle De Loecker are saying is right, I don't see a reason for not going with multiproto either.
I'm an enduser and I would be happy with multiproto as well. I think I'm not alone if I say I care less *what* the solution is going to be, as long as we get DVB-S2 support in-kernel.
P. van Gaans
_______________________________________________
linux-dvb mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
hello mauro,
Quoted 6 lines · Mauro Carvalho Chehab
Hello, Manu,
Quoted 2 lines · Manu Abraham
Hello Mauro,
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Please pull from http://jusst.de/hg/multiproto_api_merge/
to merge the following Changesets from the multiproto tree.The need for supporting newer DTV protocols increases day by day, since when the first multiproto proposal started to be discussed, about two years ago.
At the end of the last year, Steven send one email to the ML with a different API proposal. Yet, people decided to wait for your work to be done. People then pinged you, from time to time, asking about the completion of multiproto. All the times, your answer were that multiproto were not ready yet for production.
how is the actual state of his proposal?
Quoted 4 lines
I'm aware that your solution seems to be more code-complete than Steven's proposal.
But the recent activity on the mailing list regarding his idea (and its, so far, positive feedback) and the fact that I was anyway planning to have a discussion about the future of the DVB-API at the Linux Plumbers Conference 2008 are supporting me in my idea of post-poning such a pull to a point in time shortly after this event.
with whom? the linuxtv developers or with an attending audience?
i havent been on the list and that active since the "nearly two years war" begun, thus i am not the one to ack or nack in this pull request.
what i did in the past was just watching what was happening and what was taking progress - even if it is slow.
users on the linuxtv list started to ask over and over again, when multiproto is going to be merged. vdr started to support it in a kind of experiment.
due to the lack of spare time and devices :) i do not actually know how productive the vdr multiproto implementation is, but we should not start the whole discussions again.
if we do not merge multiproto now, we will never do it, i am afraid.
for the future of this project it is more than neccessary to get some progress.
if there are no serious objections to multiproto, mauro, please pull/merge it within the next few days. to wait until the end of september is time spending without any sense.
regards
marcel
Quoted 8 lines
Cheers,
Mauro_______________________________________________
linux-dvb mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Hi Marcel,
Quoted 15 lines · On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 18:22:59 +0200 Marcel Siegert <[email protected]> wrote:
hello mauro,
Quoted 12 lines · Mauro Carvalho Chehab
Hello, Manu,
Quoted 4 lines · Manu Abraham
Hello Mauro,
Please pull from http://jusst.de/hg/multiproto_api_merge/
to merge the following Changesets from the multiproto tree.The need for supporting newer DTV protocols increases day by day, since when the first multiproto proposal started to be discussed, about two years ago.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 5 lines
At the end of the last year, Steven send one email to the ML with a different API proposal. Yet, people decided to wait for your work to be done. People then pinged you, from time to time, asking about the completion of multiproto. All the times, your answer were that multiproto were not ready yet for production.
how is the actual state of his proposal?
Steven can explain the details. Basically: it works, it is simple to understand and to work with, and it seems to be flexible enough to support all current needs and seems to be flexible enough to support future protocols. It is currently under review based on community feedback.
I didn't have time yet to do carefully inspect the latest version of the multiproto. I suspect that nobody did it yet, since I didn't see any technical analysis of the current proposal.
I'll carefully review multiproto proposal during my trip, and compare it with the Stoth's proposal.
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 9 lines
I'm aware that your solution seems to be more code-complete than Steven's proposal.
But the recent activity on the mailing list regarding his idea (and its, so far, positive feedback) and the fact that I was anyway planning to have a discussion about the future of the DVB-API at the Linux Plumbers Conference 2008 are supporting me in my idea of post-poning such a pull to a point in time shortly after this event.
with whom? the linuxtv developers or with an attending audience?
We'll have some sort of panel or speech for the attending audience of the Video input infrastructure miniconf. The API analysis will happen with the Linuxtv developers that will be there.
Quoted 12 lines
i havent been on the list and that active since the "nearly two years war" begun, thus i am not the one to ack or nack in this pull request.
what i did in the past was just watching what was happening and what was taking progress - even if it is slow.
users on the linuxtv list started to ask over and over again, when multiproto is going to be merged. vdr started to support it in a kind of experiment.
due to the lack of spare time and devices :) i do not actually know how productive the vdr multiproto implementation is, but we should not start the whole discussions again.
Quoted 7 lines
if we do not merge multiproto now, we will never do it, i am afraid.
for the future of this project it is more than neccessary to get some progress.
if there are no serious objections to multiproto, mauro, please pull/merge it within the next few days. to wait until the end of september is time spending without any sense.
As I've already explained, merging today or after Plumbers won't make any practical difference. The upstream merge will only happen after 2.6.27 being released, due to the next kernel window for merging patches. This is a major change at API and claims for a carefully analysis.
Cheers,
Mauro
_______________________________________________
linux-dvb mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 8 lines · VDR User
It's no secret Mauro and company are trying to sweep multiproto under the rug so I too am curious to hear about how those multiproto talks went.
By the way, maybe someone will have the decency to remove the misleading b.s. and lies from
http://www.linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/Multiproto
mister sombody is currently on holiday
perhaps mister anybody will do it for him
_______________________________________________
linux-dvb mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Quoted 12 lines · Mauro Carvalho Chehab
Hello, Manu,
Quoted 4 lines · Manu Abraham
Hello Mauro,
Please pull from http://jusst.de/hg/multiproto_api_merge/
to merge the following Changesets from the multiproto tree.The need for supporting newer DTV protocols increases day by day, since when the first multiproto proposal started to be discussed, about two years ago.
Quoted 7 lines
At the end of the last year, Steven send one email to the ML with a different API proposal. Yet, people decided to wait for your work to be done. People then pinged you, from time to time, asking about the completion of multiproto. All the times, your answer were that multiproto were not ready yet for production.
I'm aware that your solution seems to be more code-complete than Steven's proposal.
It's not my personal solution, it was contributed by many people. You can read the details from the linux-dvb ML archives.
Quoted 5 lines
But the recent activity on the mailing list regarding his idea (and its, so far, positive feedback) and the fact that I was anyway planning to have a discussion about the future of the DVB-API at the Linux Plumbers Conference 2008 are supporting me in my idea of post-poning such a pull to a point in time shortly after this event.
Something seems to be stinking. There is no reason to legitimately delay so much. If the intention is for a merge, please do so within the next few days.
Regards,
Manu
Le Monday 01 September 2008 22:33:40 Manu Abraham, vous avez écrit :
Quoted 3 lines
Something seems to be stinking. There is no reason to legitimately delay so much. If the intention is for a merge, please do so within the next few days.
Hi Manu,
Funny to see that you are now giving multiproto merge a very high priority :)
Anyway, as an application dev, i prefer Steve's proposal. And porting drivers to this new API shouldn't take ages.
Signature · 7 lines
Christophe Thommeret _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list [email protected] http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Quoted 10 lines · Christophe Thommeret
Le Monday 01 September 2008 22:33:40 Manu Abraham, vous avez écrit :
Quoted 3 lines
Something seems to be stinking. There is no reason to legitimately delay so much. If the intention is for a merge, please do so within the next few days.
Hi Manu,
Funny to see that you are now giving multiproto merge a very high priority :)
Once it is ready to be merged, there's no reason to hold back a merge and hence ..
_______________________________________________
linux-dvb mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Christophe Thommeret schreef:
Quoted 6 lines
Le Monday 01 September 2008 22:33:40 Manu Abraham, vous avez écrit :
Quoted 4 lines
Something seems to be stinking. There is no reason to legitimately delay so much. If the intention is for a merge, please do so within the next few days.
Quoted 6 lines
Hi Manu,
Funny to see that you are now giving multiproto merge a very high priority :)
Anyway, as an application dev, i prefer Steve's proposal. And porting drivers to this new API shouldn't take ages.
I'm sorry for my ignorance, all this drivers and api scene is still new territory for me, as I said before :) but could you explain why designing a whole new api is preferable to an application developer?
/Met vriendelijke groeten,/
*Jelle De Loecker*
Kipdola Studios - Tomberg
_______________________________________________
linux-dvb mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Le Monday 01 September 2008 23:09:10 Jelle De Loecker, vous avez écrit :
Quoted 11 lines
Christophe Thommeret schreef:
Quoted 10 lines
Le Monday 01 September 2008 22:33:40 Manu Abraham, vous avez écrit :
Quoted 3 lines
Something seems to be stinking. There is no reason to legitimately delay so much. If the intention is for a merge, please do so within the next few days.
Hi Manu,
Funny to see that you are now giving multiproto merge a very high priority :)
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Anyway, as an application dev, i prefer Steve's proposal. And porting drivers to this new API shouldn't take ages.
I'm sorry for my ignorance, all this drivers and api scene is still new territory for me, as I said before :)
but could you explain why designing a whole new api is preferable to an application developer?
Both Manu's and Steve's API proposals are new since none are approved/merged yet.
I know that some guys have made multiproto patches for various applications, but this should not be a major argument in favor of multiproto (tuning code is a very very little part of a DVB app).
Signature · 7 lines
Christophe Thommeret _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list [email protected] http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Quoted 37 lines
Hello Mauro,
Please pull from http://jusst.de/hg/multiproto_api_merge/
to merge the following Changesets from the multiproto tree.8876
8875
8874
8873
8872
8871
8870
8869
8868
8867
8866
8865
8864
8863
8862
8861
8860
8859
8858
8857
8856
8855
8854
8853
8852
8851
8850
8849
8848
8847
8846
Quoted 5 lines
The tree is being pushed out, it might take a little while for the repository to be populated due to the slow connect.
Regards,
Manu
that pull request does not include the following code, does it?
stb0899
stb6100
mantis
Regards,
Hans
Signature · 9 lines
Release early, release often. Ist Ihr Browser Vista-kompatibel? Jetzt die neuesten Browser-Versionen downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/browser _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list [email protected] http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Quoted 5 lines · Hans Werner
that pull request does not include the following code, does it?
stb0899
stb6100
mantis
The above mentioned requires the API change and the relevant callbacks to exist, without which it wouldn't even compile. So it makes sense to merge the API changes initially prior to anything else.
Regards,
Manu
_______________________________________________
linux-dvb mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb