--- nirik has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process
nirikFESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, dgilmore, dwmw2, jwb, notting, nirik, sharkcz, jds2001, j-rod
nirikHi everybody; who's around?
* bpepple is here.
* jds2001 here for a few minutes
jds2001well 30 minutes, then i have a call to get on and will be inattentive but maybe looking :)
* sharkcz is here
nirikjds2001: ticket 136 is done right, so we have no FPC stuff to review this time?
did i not close it?
nirikseems to be open still.
* dgilmore is here
--- nirik has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Sponsor Nominations
nirikok, shall we get started with sponsor nominations?
nirik.fesco 135
zodbotnirik: #135 (Sponsorship nomination: mmahut) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/135
bpepple+1 here also.
bpeppledwmw2, nirik: ?
nirik+1 here as well. I think he's improved a lot since he started and done a lot of reviews now.
nirikok, so thats +5 so they are approved.
nirik.fesco 137
zodbotnirik: #137 (Sponsorship Request - s4504kr) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/137
bpepple+1.  I looked at a bunch of reviews last night, and didn't see anything that caused me concern about making him a sponsor.
nirikJochen hasn't seemed all that active of late with reviews... but perhaps getting him to sponsor people would make him more active.
so, +1 here. (all the reviews I saw were ok as well)
tibbsDidn't he ask for sponsorship a couple of years ago?
bpeppletibbs: possibly.
jds2001he asked for provenpackager when we reseeded and was approved
sharkcz+1, IIRC we did mutually few reviews and have no problems
dwmw2: ?
nirikdgilmore / dwmw2 ?
dwmw2trying to have an opinion :)
nirikso thats +5, they are approved.
nirik.fesco 138
zodbotnirik: #138 (Sponsorship request: peter) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/138
nirik+1 to peter here.
sharkcz+1 here also
jds2001+1 here too
nirikdgilmore: ?
jds2001we have five :)
nirikyeah, +5 so this request is approved.
nirik.fesco 139
zodbotnirik: #139 (Sponsorship request: jussilehtola) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/139
* nirik has an issue with the reasoning on this one.
nirik looks for what he was remembering.
jds2001this wasnt a self-nomination either.
* dwmw2 doesn't see a problem, but waits for nirik
* jds2001 also doesn't see an issue.
nirikperhaps it was someone else. They said they wanted to have provenpackager to make changes for merge reviews.
bpepple+1 to jussilehtola.
jds2001oh, yeah that was someone else
nirikyeah, I am crazy. Sorry.
jds2001nirik: we alreay knew that :)
* nirik nods. ;)
dgilmoresorry i just had a ups crap itself
dwmw2well, jissilehtola's nomination _does_ mention merge reviews
* nirik is looking... have they only done 20 reviews? one of those links is not right.
jds2001i see 60
nirikah, much better.
jds2001i think one is his submissions
i think i forwarded this from my cell
so didnt actually look at the links prior to forwarding/insert my own.
nirikyes, it was them... let me link to the email.
I think that if a maintainer on a merge review says: ok, all your stuff is minor and looks fine to me, but I am busy, can you commit build it. Thats great.
I don't think we should have reviewers fix packages for merge reviews unless they are wanting to maintain them moving forward.
or the maintainer wants them too and understands the changes.
dwmw2nirik: if a maintainer says nothing, I think it's fine for a competent (proven) packager to just go fix the thing too
mharrisI've got bucketloads of time to throw around quite often and have been thinking of diving back into things lately.  I'd be willing to help dive through the backlog of rpm packages needing review/packaging/fixing/etc.
abadger1999Maybe FESCo should have a policy of "no reply to merge review; announce on fedora-devel; wait 1 week"
nirikthen we don't really have a maintainer do we? shouldn't we rather start non responsive maintainer on it?
mharrisAny idea what the current backlog tally is?
dwmw2abadger1999: I think we should have a policy of not having too many policies
nirikmharris: that would be excellent. It's big...
abadger1999mharris: You would be a hero.  Right up there with Saint tibbs :-)
jds2001mharris: according to that mail ~400
abadger1999dwmw2: Let me see, would that be policy number 542 or 543?
dwmw2grant provenpackager to jussi, with a comment "please don't piss people off"
dwmw2no need for a policy :)
mharrisWell, I've been wanting to start contributing packages again, and I figured I'd submit them into the pile that is already there to wait forever like everyone else so...  why not tackle the problem from the other end. :)
tibbsMerge reviews are somewhat special, though.
mharrisjds2001: which mail?  I'm not on many lists currently, but will sign up.
tibbsRemember that currently many of the maintainers aren't even CC'd on the review tickets, so they won't see any responses.
nirikdwmw2: well, I would be ok with voicing my concerns to them. That email worries me tho that they would change something without any input from the maintainer.
dwmw2merge reviews are only "special" because nobody actually cares about them
jds2001mharris: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-April/msg01230.html
that's the merge review backlog
dwmw2when reviews are a hoop to jump through to get your packages accepted, people care (and they have a good effect on quality)
tibbsSome folks do care, once they actually start getting the bugzilla messages.
jds2001the review backlog is larger, but part of it is those 452
dwmw2but nobody _cares_ about either doing merge reviews, or fixing stuff that's highlighted.
sharkcztibbs: true, the ownership of the former core packages changes during the time in RH
dwmw2mostly, with a few conscientious exceptions
I definitely don't want to _discourage_ those exceptions by withholding provenpackager status :)
jds2001so this is a sponsorship request too, not just provenpackager.
* nirik nods.
jds2001just wanted to make sure ppl were aware :)
mharrisjds2001: Thanks, I'll get up to scratch on that.  I need to make a new account on the system as well, it's been a while... ;)
abadger1999mharris: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Package_Review
nirikI guess it might be good to note to anyone doing merge reviews a few things: 1) make sure the current maintainer gets cced. 2) make sure you check against the current rawhide package.
nirikmharris: feel free to catch me sometime to review/sponsor you back into the right groups.
abadger1999: thanks
nirikanyhow, I guess we are drifting here... so where do we stand?
dwmw2nirik: that makes sense. Those are in the policy on touching other people's packages anyway, aren't they?
did we finish voting on this request?
bpeppleI think we were at 4 votes for his request.
nirikdwmw2: sure, but that email makes me concered that they think making changes for a merge review is all ok. I guess as long as they agree to only make minor changes or with the maintainers approval I am ok with it.
dwmw2we can convey that message with the 'approval granted' notice.
nirikI will +1 this request, and can reply to their devel post with my concerns.
dwmw2or your concerns could be phrased as FESCo's concerns, in the 'official' response, if you prefer.
dwmw2I don't think anyone seriously disagrees.
nirikeither way or both would be fine with me.
so thats +5, so they are approved.
nirik.fesco 140
zodbotnirik: #140 (Please make me a member of 'provenpackagers') - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/140
this is lennart
bpepple+1 to lennart being proven packager.
* jds2001 didnt modify the subject :(
nirik+1 (allowing him to assist with other desktop packages sound issues sounds like a good idea to me)
thats +5, so we have approved this request.
ok, on to the fun pulseaudio discussion.
nirik.fesco 141
zodbotnirik: #141 (PulseAudio regression handling) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/141
nirikdwmw2: care to lead this discussion/voice your concerns?
dwmw2we've broken a bunch of cases which used to work
we respond by calling them 'weird'
I don't think that's good enough.
mezcalerobtw, may i say something too?
dwmw2to be clear: I'm _not_ complaining about bugs and unreliability. That sucked for F-10 but I think we have a better handle on it for F-11
they've been doing a good job of improving that
bpepplemezcalero: definitely.
dwmw2mezcalero: go ahead
mezcalerooops, sorry doing two things at the same time
"a bunch of cases"
is not exactly true
mezcaleroafaics there are two things
1) the thing about the input source selection
there is a bug open about this
situation is not that great
but i don't think a real problem
i never closed that issue btw
nirikin this case we need to fix each of the broken alsa drivers?
mezcalerosome folks an i decided to fix that in f12 and add a comment in the release notes
which afaik has happened
no, this is about the alsa apis being broken
but i will work around this for f12
just read the bug report
lemme find it
nirikok, so it's an alsalib issue?
buggbotBug 491372: medium, high, ---, lpoetter, NEW, Doesn't handle switching inputs on one device
nirikpicking the wrong {PCM|MASTER|whatever}
mezcalerono, it's not about that
dwmw2that's a separate issue
mezcaleroread that bug report
then issue 2) goes like this:
* nirik reads
dwmw2the input-selection thing is still open, so that's fine.
it's kind of suboptimal that we introduce a regression that has to wait so long for a fix, but at least we're working on it.
mezcalerodwmw2 wants to use the line-in of his sound card in a way i think is out of scope for pa
and that's what i said, and closed the bug
referring him to use the low-level alsa mixer
dwmw2I think someone else was the line-in one
ixsthe line in was wwoods IIRC
dwmw2I just wanted to be able to turn my speakers on and off
mezcaleroeveryones first reaction was that this is quite an exotic use of a sound card
and pa focusses to make the common case easy
and the uncommon cases can still be supported too
but outside of pa
i.e. by dropping to alsamixer
dwmw2 insists that his usage is not niche
and to use alsamixer for this is too much to ask for
oh, there was that third thing
dwmw2I insist that there are a _lot_ of use cases outside the core 'play flash sounds and video' which aren't supported by the PA
nirikthe issue is that many people have no idea alsamixer exists.
abadger1999if this is the monitor line-in one, I recall at least one poster saying this wasn't that exotic a use case with an example.
dwmw2including just 'maximise the usable volume from what's playing right now', even.
mezcaleronirik: sure, but those people don't want to use a mixer in this weird way
dwmw2I can't tell me father to use alsamixer.
mharrisdwmw2: +1
dwmw2If there was an 'advanced...' button in the new gnome-volume-control which gave me the old settings, that might work. Or if there was a way to get back to the controls we had in F-10.
mezcalerousing the sound card like this is only done by people who actually know that it can be done. it's a weird way to use a sound card
and since they are pros, they can just use alsamixer or another tool
jwbthat's the dumbest argument i have ever heard
mezcalerolove you too
dwmw2My father has recently taken up folk music and morris dancing
dgilmoremezcalero: when i do video calls to my mum i need to ssh to her box and fix up the volume settings
abadger1999mezcalero: Uhm... the poster was saying it's common to hook an mp3 player up to a computer and then have the sound go to the computer's speakers.  Which would be a very end-user'ish thing to do.
jwbseeing that you have a 'line-in' jack on your sound card and expecting it to work does not make you an expert
dwmw2he's starting to play an instrument, and even record stuff.
mezcaleroabadger1999: yes, i doubt this is so common
dwmw2He knows that he can feed audio into a device through its 'line in' socket.
mezcaleroabadger1999: it's a niceh usage, out of pa's focus
dwmw2and hooks up things like tape recorders.
mezcaleroabadger1999: if you want to do it, do it with raw alsa
dwmw2and he's a complete muppet when it comes to computers
I'm happy with "out of PA's focus" as an answer.
abadger1999To hook an mp3 player up to your computer and play sounds?
dwmw2But not with "out of Fedora's focus"
mezcaleropa doesn't do pro audio stuff
we don't do hdr
we don't do music production
abadger1999That is so end-user-ish I don't know what to say.
mezcaleroif you want input feedback monitoring, then don't use pa
dwmw2ok, fine.
that's the answer.
how do we do that in Fedora?
mharrisOne thing I find disconcerting, is how projects seem to get together a small handful of developers in a room, make up ficticious end users, then decide how those people probably use a computer and design to that.  There is no actual real world studies done on how real people use the computer.
dwmw2I need my father to "don't use pa", as instructred
ixsThey way I see it, following the discussion: PA is a nice audio solution for a very specific use case. But is it the right way to make this specific use case the default? Or should it be user-installable as e.g. jack, which I consider to be built for pro-audio?
bpeppleabadger1999: really? I'm sorta with mezcalero that it's not that common of a scenario.
drago01mezcalero: its not really about PA (people do not care what is happening in the background) but they complain about the default UI
mharrisJust a long series of (false) assumptions about how people use the computer based on random guesswork.
dwmw2ixs: it's Ok for it to be the default, I think. But not to the exclusion of all other (non-text-mode) possibilities
ixsmharris: +1
drago01mezcalero: so they not asking for support in PA but in gnome-volume-control
dwmw2one of the problems is that getting things "right" involves having an accurate database of how various bizarre hardware works
and that database can _never_ be perfect.
mezcaleropeople are asking us, to include support for all kinds of niche usages of sound cards into the volume control UIs
and i just don't think that makes any sense
dwmw2even for the 'common' case you're often going to find that the user needs to tweak stuff
nirikis there any page/description of exactly what pulseaudios "focus" is? and use cases that are supported/not supported?
dgilmorebpepple: i think its a pretty common use case
mharrisNow, if the GNOME project could back up a number of these decisions by citing actual real world studies on real human beings, that would be something else.
mezcalerofor those niche and pro audio uses, don't use g-v-c
mharrisAnd not 10 people picked at random.  Maybe 1000 or 10000.
mezcalerothe same as you wouldn't use it for audio production, where you'd use JACK
dwmw2In Fedora 10 there was a way for users to do all these things, and it was in gnome-volume-control.
mezcaleroso, it's just a matter of deciding whether those exotic uses are important enough to have them in g-v-c, or not
dwmw2g-v-c was a mess, at times, and could do with hiding some of the controls -- but I thought it _did_ that, and you had to manually go into the preferences and make the weird ones visible?
mezcaleroand i say not, they are not
mharrisdwmw2: maybe pressing CTRL-L? ;)
abadger1999bpepple: How do you play sounds from your mp3 player for a roomful of people?  Dedicated speakers?  Stereo sysem?  TV?
dwmw2and we made it simpler in F-11, which is great
f13dwmw2: the problem was that for some people, the 'weird' ones were the ones that needed to be frobbed.
dwmw2but in doing so, we have _broken_ a number of use cases. We need to fix those. Give users _some_ way, graphically, of still tweaking the same settings.
bpeppleabadger1999: stereo.  I don't usually keep a computer with decent speakers in any of my main room.
abadger1999Maybe it depends on budget.  Some people have a computer because it can help do work but not the things that are "entertainment".
dwmw2f13: except in F-10 it _wasn't_ a huge problem, because you could still enable those ones and frob them to your heart's content.
mezcalerothe thing is, who decides which feature should be cluttering the UI and which shouldn't. Right now Bastien and Jon and I decided that none of the issues raised should be exposed.
dwmw2we hid them by _default_ only, and didn't actually prevent you from getting at them at all.
f13yeah, it was a bit of check every box and twiddle sliders until something happened
ixsI think one of the problems is the definition of weird. Lennart considers line-in and cd audio weird and doesn't want to support these as it's outside the PA scope. I believe however, that our users are using their systems that way.
so for them, fedora is broken.
mharrisdwmw2: perhaps we could fire up winvol.exe in wine to get the job done... ;)
mezcaleroand i am unwilling to change that and refer folks to alsamixer
abadger1999bpepple: <nod>.  But the computer speakers are better than earphones?  So in a college dorm room, for instance, it would make sense?
ixsoffering them to install additional software or use another mixer from the menu doesn't work.
mezcalerocd audio?
ixsthey will be clicking the mixer in the taskbar.
mezcalero: cdda audio input
mezcaleroafaik the gnome cdplayer grabs audio cds digitally
ixsmezcalero: analog.
bpeppleabadger1999: possibly, but most of the college students I know have a dedicated speaker system for their ipods.
mezcaleroso, if you really thinkg that the analog cd audio path matters then please bring that up with gnome-media first
f13I used line in to play my ipod for a long time
ixsmezcalero: it does? My understanding was always that it's using the analog in as the volume can be changed by the CD-In slider.
nirikI think we are going to have a lot of people mad unless there is a clear list of what pulseaudios focus is/use cases are.
f13even worse now that things like iphones and ipod touches can't be seen by audio players to play direct
dwmw2If we weren't so late in the process, I'd be suggesting that we follow the contingency plan for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/VolumeControl
mharrisAnother major problem that I see on the Linux desktop, is that there are a number of differing usage case groups for many different things, but no single entity wants to try to create a single solution that attempts to solve all the major issues for all of the major groups.
mezcaleroso again, these are all exotic uses. I am not barring anyone to make use of that. But Jon, Bastien and I just don't think it should be g-v-c
nirikI also think pointing people to alsamixer is failure.
dwmw2I think we should have a button in the new volume control which runs the old one.
mharrisInstead, each group is considered a niche, and writes their own competing solution to the same problem with a focus on the features that matter most to their niche.
f13I don't think I agree with "exotic" for plugging an audio producing device into line in
dwmw2we _cannot_ get it right for all cases, and we have to recognise that fact.
mharrisSo we have 10 different solutions to the same problem.  Every solution does one thing and does it well, but fails at the other 10 things.
mezcalerof13: when youw ant to record from it makes sense
dwmw2we also need to make sure that the PA volume handling isn't constantly trampling on the manual ALSA settings.
mezcalerobut a sound card is a pretty bad mixer for ananlog sources
f13no, just playing it
mharrisAnd often switching from one solution to another *requires* one be somewhat of an expert even if they are not, but need the functionality.  -> FAIL
nirikso, for f11, can we get some other graphical mixer available for those that have use cases outside pulseaudio?
mezcaleroagain, i don't think the UI should expose by default any of these exotic uses
if people want to make use of it
mezcalerothey can use alsamixer or something similar
and if they don't know about that
they can read the release notes
or google for it
dwmw2nirik: I think that would be very useful, yes. Run the old g-v-c if the user presses an 'advanced...' button in the new one, or something.
nirikwhat is in the release notes on this?
mezcaleroand will certainly find something that explains how to use alsamixer
or a similar tool
dwmw2we _removed_ the best 'similar tool'
f13I have my speakers plugged in, so that I hear pidgin or irc beeps, but I also want to play music from my device, my speakers don't have multiple inputs.
this is one of the good things about pulse, I can get all those sounds to play at once
dwmw2and made it useless for these peopel
f13before if I was listening to music, pidgin sounds would queue up
mezcalero: bad mixer or not, it can do it, and doing so I don't think is as exotic as you think i tis.
nirikmezcalero: can you write up a page on what use cases pulse handles? so we can tell people with other cases that they need to go to another mixer?
dwmw2let's put it back, and make it possible to run it without having to jmp through hoops (but I'm still OK with not by default)
mezcalerof13: then we disgree
mclasendwmw2: feel free to maintain it
upstream too
mezcaleronirik: dunno, i'd rather see a list of use-cases it doesn't handle, which we then can identify as "matters" and "doesn't matter"
nirikmezcalero: well, if you don't have such a document, you will get a continual flow of bugs saying that it's broken, and getting mad if you just close them.
at least you can point them all at such a document.
dwmw2Proposal: FESCo is unhappy with the results of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/VolumeControl and is very tempted to follow the contingency plan and revert it. Before doing that, we could like to ask the maintainers to pay more attention to the "exotic" use cases which they are intentionally disenfranchising:
mezcalerono, i am not spending my time on making weird things work, sorry
this is ridicululous
ixsdwmw2: that would prevent PA beeing seen as a regression?
bpepple-1 to proposal.
nirik-1 here as well.
dwmw2ixs: I think so, yes.
drago01ixs: its not about pa but the mixer UI ...
ixsdrago01: is it such a big difference to the end user?
dwmw2bpepple, nirik, leigh123linux: would you care to say why? Do you think it's just badly phrased proposal, or do you disagree that we should care about such use cases, etc?
drago01ixs: no but claiming that pa stops you from doing this things is just wrong
jwbwe seem to have a simple case of an upstream project that refuses to consider outside input on what is important
what would we normally do in taht case?
dwmw2jwb: we wouldn't bet the farm on that project. We'd make it possibly to bypass that project for the cases where it isn't useful
mezcalerowhat about the following proposal: if anybody really wants to see the old g-v-c available he is free to maintain that in fedora
dwmw2if it doesn't claim to be all things to all users, we wouldn't restrict our users to _only_ that project.
nirikdwmw2: well, I think it's only likely to make mezcalero mad. We can't force people to work on things that they don't want to. I think we need to all relax and try and figure out more how we can compromise.
ixsjwb: the general case is to go look for another software stack doing the same thing. However, PA is not just "another upstream project"
dwmw2which is what we've done
mezcalerodwmw2: if you want to see the old g-v-c back in fedora, then MAINTAIN IT
jwbmezcalero, would you add the 'advanced' button that dwmw2 suggested that simply started the old g-v-c?
mezcalerodon't try to get other people to do this for you by some bureaucratic process
mclasenjwb: thats not his call
mezcalerojwb: that's not my decision
jwbwho's is it?
bpeppleMy objections to the proposal is due to how late in the release this decision is being made.  The volume control feature has been written about (feature page and on various planets ) and discussed for awhile now, and objections should have been made a lot earlier in the process.
mclasenand no, I don't think we would add that button
mezcalerojwb: ask bastien, and ask jon
* nirik would maintain it if it would help, but I don't use gnome, so I don't think I would be the best maintainer.
mezcalerojwb: a possible solution would be to add that button only if /usr/bin/old-g-v-c exists or so
jwb: but i am against even that
dwmw2bpepple: true. That's why I said 'tempted to'. :)
jwbmclasen, can i ask why?
mclasenif you want g-v-c back, maintain it upstream, package it, put it in the menus
simple, easy, just a little work to do
instead of writing flames
jwbi'm not writing a flame.  i'm asking for a button..
nirikso all that would help tho is people would see something doesn't work, complain/file bugs/etc and get told to use 'g-v-c' instead of alsamixer?
mezcalerojwb: what's the point of the button, if you already have a menu?
dwmw2maintaining the tool itself is doable
we need it to be accessible to those people who click on the volume stuff in their panel
nirikmezcalero: it would allow people seeing it not work for their case to easily try and go back to g-v-c.
jwbmezcalero, because people click on the little speaker applet (which is default).  they don't go hunting in menus for things that are right there on the desktop
mclasendwmw2: there is no point to make an unusable tool easily accessible
ixsmezcalero: users are used to click on the volume button in the taskbar. not look in the menu. It's probably just the users expectation.
nirikinstead of posting to mailing lists, filing bugs, flaming on irc, forums, etc.
mezcaleroi don't think there needs to be easy access to weird exotic features
if there is a menu entry for that, that's good enough
dwmw2we disagree on the exoticness of certain features
that is 'exotic' for PA and quite rightly unsupported,
is a perfectly reasonable use case for Fedora
jwbmezcalero, pardon me asking, but what is your real name?  i don't recognize your nick and whois isn't helping me
abadger1999jwb: mezcalero == lennart
jwbah, thank you
mezcaleroi mean, come on, this whole disccussion is so pointless. we are having a discussion here in FESCO about where to put a button or not put it at all
dwmw2I'll maintain g-v-c if I really must, but I want it people like my father to be able to _find_ it, which means being able to run it from the right-click menu of the thing in the panel, or an 'Advanced...' button in the PA volume control app
mezcalerodwmw2: then make it replace the real g-v-c
dwmw2: that's an issue of your packaging
dwmw2that's just silly.
jwbit's also prohibited
unless it uses alternatives
mezcalerojwb: alternatvies seems to be an awesome use for this
dwmw2not really
because you want both installed
jwbarguing over a button isn't what we're doing though
dwmw2you want to let PA do its thing, but fall back to fixing the things it gets wrong, or can't handle
mclasenno, I disagree with alternatives for this too
mezcalerowe are discussing packaging issues
mclasenand I don't really think fesco wants to start mandating where we put buttons
mezcaleropackaging issues of a package i don't really care about
bpepplemclasen: definitely.
abadger1999mclasen: +1
jwbit was a request at a compromise
dwmw2FESCo is interested in the second half of my above sentence: the 'but fall back to fixing the things it gets wrong'.
jwbdamn, people...
dwmw2At least, I hope so ;)
nirikthe problem is that in f11 some unknown % of fedora users use cases will not work. I think the idea here is that we could try and make something for this release so those folks could easily get their use cases working again.
dwmw2and the best answer to that seems to be that we make access to the underlying ALSA mixer controls work again, from the GUI.
ixsbut I think fesco is taking the wrong perspective here. Fesco#s job is not to mandate the design or the scope of PA but to consider impact of the Fedora Release.
mezcalerodwmw2: it doesn't get things 'wrong' that much. if it did file a bug. some things are out of focus, that's all
f13honestly, somebody packaging up the full mixer and getting it installed by default too is probably enough
mclasennirik: there is always an unknown % of things that don't work. I don't see the point in that argument at all
f13relnotes can mention that a full mixer is available in the menus
drago01nirik: slip the release by 5 years
f13it's a bit easier than telling people to use alsamixer
mezcaleroi am against installing that by default
there is no reason to
if you want exotic setups, then install the pkg
mclasenf13: don't look for us to do that
mezcalerono need to clutter the menus with that
dwmw2f13: That's a start, but it makes a lot more sense to add a button to the lobotomised volume control, which lets you run the advanced one
niriksure, time marches on and all. The reason we are talking about it is that many people find it to be a concern for the next release.
f13mclasen: I'm not
mclasenf13: and I don't think the desktop sig will agree to install it by default
in the desktop spin
dwmw2don't FESCo get to approve spins?
f13*shrug* the help then becomes "yum install foo; run foo"
dwmw2if we're playing that kind of silly game.
f13I guess we'll see how often that has to get done to decide what to do for F12
ixsf13: I don't think that's going to work.
niriksure, but that gets back to flames until someone gets that suggestion...
mclasendwmw2: don't approve it then
this is silly, indeed
wwoodswe have... 3 months until F12 Alpha? is that right?
f13if that
dwmw2let's package the old volume control, because some people _do_ need it.
f13f12 is a short cycle.
ixsbesides, I think it's a pretty lame excuse for solving a regression to write in the release notes how to rip out a much touted feature and replace the mixer with something else.
dwmw2Hell, I'll do that if I have to, if people _really_ want me maintaining gui code :)
nirikdwmw2: well, there is xfce4-mixer as well if you just want a mixer.
f13ixs: it's not ripping out and replacing.
dwmw2and add a sensible way for people to _find_ it, when the PA volume control isn't good enough.
f13ixs: it's augmenting, in a graphical way, as opposed to alsamixer
ixsf13: if we're using alternatives that'll be the result.
nirikixs: what is your alternate proposal?
f13ixs: nobody is seriously considering alternatives
pulling out alternatives is close to godwin's law 'round here.
mezcaleroi think release notes plus google is good enough a way to find that obsolete version of g-v-c
dwmw2nobody reads release notes.
* nirik nods. Sad but true
mclasenwhy do we write them then ?
dwmw2I think an 'advanced' button in what we ship, or another item in the right-click menu in the panel, is a good way to find that version of g-v-c
f13but release notes provide a useful place to point people at when they ask questions
nirikanyhow, do we want to try and accomplish anything here? or ?
wwoodssince this is tied to a F11 Feature (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/VolumeControl) and certain parts of the scope are incomplete
drago01didn't ubuntu just release with exactly this issue? are users complaining?
wwoodsit's definitely within FESCo's reach to suggest compromises here
ixsnirik: honestly? I think the suggestion starting a graphical alsa mixer for "out-of-scope" cases is sensible. I do not think that putting that mixer in a menu somewhere is the right thing however as users will not expect a second mixer. An advanced button could take care of that problem but would need cooperation from upstream, which might not be likely, or result in fedora having a local patch.
wwoodsfor strong values of "suggest".
mharrisWhat happens when any particular use case is only 2% of users, but there are 50 use cases that aren't handled and the cumulated "exotic cases" results in 30-50% of users being screwed?
ixsf13: is it? wow. I'm shipping packages using alternatives... whoaps. :D
dwmw2people interact with the volume control through the thing in the panel. If the thing in the panel suddenly stops working for them, they _don't_ expect to be able to find the real tool hidden away somewhere else in the menus.
that's a _really_ bad suggestion, IMHO
f13wwoods: what isn't complete?  the feature is marked 100%
mclasenmharris: we add more advanced buttons, of course
mezcalerodwmw2: 'google' is a good remedy for folks who don't read release notes
wwoodsf13: two things in scope - "PulseAudio to allow supporting features in the front-ends" and "kernel (ALSA) which should trim the number of user visible hardware channels"
mclasenwwoods: the feature never claimed that it would support any and all crazy sound setups that are possible
wwoodsno, but there are definitely hints that parts of the original design (exporting certain card features in the frontend/GUI code) isn't complete
which suggests that perhaps a compromise is in order until they are
* nirik thinks there is not much willingness to compromise here.
rdieter(adam) "revive gnome-alsamixer"  https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-April/msg02003.html
abadger1999drago01: Yes, but it's greasy wheel syndrome.... are the complainers there really representative of the Ubuntu community?
f13adamw: perhaps you'd like to describe your just sent proposal here?
wwoodswe have a spec and the feature doesn't seem to meet it. if we want to get pedantic about it, FESCo can pull the ripcord on the feature entirely. but that doesn't really help improve the situation.
adamwf13: ok. quickly: let's resurrect gnome-alsamixer and install it by default. g-v-c wants to cover the 90% cases in a simple user-friendly way: great. at present it covers maybe 70%. we really need a graphical app available by default for the other 30%.
dwmw2adamw: great... that means I don't have to maintain it as was being threatened :)
mclasenapps that cover 10% use cases don't need to be installed by default
dwmw2this is the same as the old gnome-volume-control?
adamwyes, then we have 'duplication', but it's a relative situation: duplication is a lesser evil than telling thousands of people how to run alsamixer from a console.
mclasenI don't agree
adamwmclasen: sure, and in future, when g-v-c is more mature and really covers 90%, we could stop installing it by default
* mharris places his hands interlocked together and holds them out to wwoods to give him a boost to reach the ripcord
dgilmore thinks we wont agree here and should move on
adamwmclasen: but for f11, g-v-c is not going to reach that state, lennart has already says so. it doesn't let you do input switching, which means most people who ever want to record anything are boned.
mezcaleroadamw: g-v-c won't cover exotic use cases, sorry
jwbdgilmore, the 'how to move on part' is the problem
dwmw2adamw: that's half the solution. The remaining problem is that users updating from F-10 will jsut see that the thing in the panel that they use has got worse, and won't tihnk to go looking around in the application menus to find the old version of that.
adamwmezcalero: i know, i don't ever expect it to. 'exotic' use cases are fine, that's the 10% i was talking about. the issue here is that g-v-c does not *yet* cover some very common cases that it's intended to cover in future.
dwmw2so we could _really_ do with a way to run the 'old' mixer from the panel
either in the right-click menu on the applet, or an ''Advanced...' button in the new g-v-c
mclasenadd a launcher to your dads desktop
ixsmharris: wanna stand on my shoulders?
adamwdwmw2: personally i'd agree, but i'm not sure that would get enough agreement. so i'm proposing something that to my mind is very conservative that really shouldn't be that hard to agree on.
wwoodsI'm pretty willing to believe that the situation will improve post-release to the point where the temporary compromise old-mixer nonsense can be removed
mharrisixs: +1
adamwwwoods: my position would be "as soon as g-v-c can do input switching and most prominent 'the slider doesn't really control my volume' bugs are fixed, we can stop installing any alternative by default"
dwmw2wwoods: I'm not sure, because we're being very forthrightly told that even things like playing CDs through the analogue path, and line-in, are "too weird".
abadger1999wwoods: The one thing about that is we get a new crowd of people screaming that there's been a regression in the middle of a stable release instead of at the release boundary.
dgilmorejwb: we wont come to the desision today
* mclasen is not going to take ui proposals from this forum, sorry
dwmw2it's _OK_ for PA to declare those cases uninteresting, but it does mean that we have to retain an alternative in Fedora
nirikdgilmore: indeed.
abadger1999dgilmore: The clock is ticking on F11.
mharrisIn the olden days, writing an IRC client used to be the cool thing everyone did.  Now it's writing sound subsystems that don't work.
nirikadamw's proposal sounds like a fine compromise to me
dgilmoreabadger1999: i know.
drago01adamw: "the slider doesn't really control my volume" this one is simply a bug that should be fixed not worked around by different mixers
dwmw2Given the attitude of the people involved, and their failure to care about regressions, I'm more of the opinion now that we should revert the 'VolumeControl' feature.
mezcaleroi think everyone agrees that dwmw2 may maintain the old g-v-c if he wants. what's left to decide? whether this will be installed on the desktop spin? as already mentioned this is not going to happen
ixsnirik: agreed. +1 for adamw
mezcaleroso what is this discussion about still?
adamwdrago01: hence the bit where i said "once it's fixed we can stop shipping any".
mclasendwmw2: good luck
jwbwait... what is the 'desktop' spin here?
wwoodsmclasen: you don't really have to take the UI suggestions, but FESCo doesn't really have to accept the feature, so it kind of behooves you all to work together
jwbthe normal Gnome based one?
* f13 watches things get ugly.
wwoodsI'm really pretty happy about the new volume control because I hate trying to figure out if I want to dick with PCM or Master or what
dwmw2wwoods: for the cases where it _works_, I'm quite happy with it too
but there are cases where it _doesn't_, which is the problem.
jwbf13, i'm not trying to get ugly.  i'm just trying to understand what mezcalero just said
mclasenwwoods: I really don't see much constructive happening here, sorry
f13mclasen: what you mean is that people here don't agree with you.
wwoodsbut we all know there are a lot of obvious cases where it doesn't work and there's an obvious temporary compromise solution that leaves everyone happy and can be removed in 3-6 months
jwbf13, well, i agree not much constructive is happening
about the only thing constructive is the adamw proposal
wwoodsbut if nobody's willing to compromise, there's a simple solution for that too
drago01adamw: no I disagree here why should a user think that a different mixer would change his volume while the default one doesn't ?
jwbmy only question is why people think they can veto it getting installed by default?
f13it'll be constructive if it gets majority fesco vote
wwoodsmuch as I love the feature, it doesn't meet its listed spec
f13because some of fesco don't feel that its enough.
drago01adamw: this is simply a bug (everybody would agree here) so we should fix it instead of adding workarounds
mclasenjwb: the desktop sig has editorial control over the contents of the desktop spin
dwmw2Proposal: FESCo welcomes adamw's gnome-alsamixer package and wants it in F-11 by default, along with making it _visible_ from the normal panel applet in some way.
drago01adamw: and changing the volume is not 'ecotic' ;)
f13drago01: even with the old mixer just adjusting the slider in the panel wouldn't always work, so that's not a new issue.
ixsjwb: I would like to see a bit more willingness for compromise actually. That way the discussion would probably be much more constructive.
drago01f13: yeah thats why I don't think adding mixer app would solve anything about that
f13drago01: taking out the existing one wouldn't fix it either
drago01: we're not going to magically fix that with any existing software
mclasenixs: after what lennart is subjected to on f-d-l, you have to admire him for being willing to discuss this at all...
drago01f13: which hardware is that? and which slider does control the volume if master and/or pcm doesn't? that can be fixed by a kernel side quirk
bpepplemclasen: agreed.
ixsmclasen: Hey, certainly no discussion that there were one or two people or maybe even three not being helpful on -devel.
f13drago01: the problem was the "and or"
ixsmclasen: but this is not devel.
f13drago01: an app had to be launched to get to the and/or, we're still at that today
nirikmclasen: agreed, but I wish you guys were willing to concede there are other cases and allow a compromise...
jwbmclasen, which is what?  the standard Gnome spin?
mclasennirik: I don't see where we ever said that it would cover every conceivable case
drago01jwb: yes
mclasenI made that point very clear in my very first mail on this subject
f13we've hit goto 1 again.
nirikmclasen: sure, but why do you resist a app being available for those cases you don't cover?
dgilmoremclasen: you are reading to much into that.  the desktop sig has input and it is weighted but you have no control over the spin.
ixsmclasen: however, currently we're having a rather one-sided discussion which I consider a real shame.
* dgilmore is quite unhappy with the desktop sig lately
mclasendgilmore: I'll have to disagree
f13dgilmore: eh, I'd say more that the desktop team controls the spin, but FESCo can override.
dwmw2I really wish we didn't have to get into a pissing contest about this
f13just like FESCo can override anything else in Fedora.
dgilmoremclasen: thats your way,  i expected nothing less from you
f13please, lets keep the personal attacks out of this
nirikdwmw2: me too. It's really not helping.
f13not helpful.
dgilmoref13: its nothing personal
mclasenwait, now I am the bad guy ?
adamwmclasen: i don't think anyone's asked for g-v-c to cover every conceivable case. please engage with what I said. right now, there are very substantial cases - input switching being the obvious one - which it does *not* cover and which need to be covered. as i said, this is a *temporary* proposal. i entirely envisage the alternative mixer being dropped for f12 as long as g-v-c has improved to cover the cases it needs to.
f13here's what I see.  Desktop team wants to suggest alsamixer as the fallback.
dgilmoremclasen: im not saying your the bad guy,
f13FESCo would like to see something easier to use/find than alsamixer
f13the pain point is arguing about whether that "something easier" is installed by default, and where it can be found.
mclasen: is alsamixer installed in the desktop spin?
mclasenI don't know
nirikyes it is.
f13alright, then why would you be opposed to something easier to use/find ?
ixsadamw: offering gnome-alsamixer wouldn't be a problem. There are ready made specs which do look up to spec for fedora inclusion.
mclasenf13: making it easy to find is not a good idea, really
f13mclasen: and why is that?
mclasen: users that aren't satisfied by the new mixer should be punished?
mclasenhaving two equally easily accessibly mixer is just confusing
f13mclasen: they wouldn't be.
the new one is in the panel
jwbthey aren't equally accessible
mclasenif you need something easier, you can always add a launcher
f13and by all rights, it /isn't/ a mixer
dwmw2that's one thing that's solved by having an 'advanced...' button in the simplified mixer
f13it's a volume slider.
wwoodsone's in the menubar by default; one is hidden in the menus somewhere
dwmw2then it's clear, and they're not just available in parallel
ixswwoods: the problem is, which to put where? the one which is simply but covers only a limited spec by design? or the other one, which might confuse users as claimed?
dwmw2it solves that problem, _and_ the problem that the fully-functional mixer is hidden in the menus somewhere, when people _used_ to be able to access it from the panel
f13mclasen: do we not agree that there are situations and users that will require a fallback mixer?
users of the desktop spin even?
dwmw2we disagree on whether we _care_ about those users :)
mclasenf13: like there are situations where NM doesn't work for your customized network setup
do we demand to put s-c-network on the panel ?
f13s-c-network was never in the panel.
jwbnobody is saying panel here
dgilmoremclasen: no one is saying something else should be on the panel
* dwmw2 is saying panel
f13and right now, I'm not asking about putting the old mixer in the panel.
wwoodsixs: what? obvious the intended default mixer - the new one - is the default thing that gets started up
f13the only one saying that is dwmw2
jwbdwmw2, well stop then
fcamis-c-network is not something that people touch everyday
f13and I'm ignoring him at the moment.
f13I'm trying out this thing called compromise
fcamigood luck.
f13we have what you want on one side, what dwmw2 wants on the other side, and neither are agreeable to both parties.
ixswwoods: really? even if it will mean serious regressions? I've seen proposals in the backlog suggesting that the new one goes in the menu until it is ready for a larger part of our install base.
f13ergo I'm trying to find some middle ground
ixswwoods: doesn't sound bad to me.
f13where both parties are upset.  it's the only way to be fair
* dwmw2 wants the new feature reverted. Making the old mixer available from the new one _was_ the compromise :)
ixsf13: no mixer at all?
* jwb sighs
wwoodsixs: no. the new code covers most of the territory - it's good enough, so long as there's a fallback for the uncommon cases
jwbirc is a horrible communication mechanism sometimes
* mclasen considers making g-v-c available in the menus a compromise
f13mclasen: so again, if you're already willing to point people at alsamixer, ^^
ok, that's exactly what I was going to ask
it'll make it easier to provide help to people who find that the default mixer doesn't work.
jwbPROPOSAL: Do the adamw proposal of packaging the old g-v-c, making it accessible via the menu.  Install it by default
adamwer, there's some signal loss happening here
f13we can also put intothe mixer or ask people that if you have to use this, please file a bug
adamwmy proposal wasn't the old g-v-c, it was gnome-alsamixer
, er
mezcalerook, so one one side there is the desktop group who specialize in the desktop and hopefully have a bit of clue what they do. And the say we don't want this feature visiable by deault. And on the other side there are a handful of people, who have niches uses of the mixer but insist that their niche usage is prominently available in the default desktop.
wwoodshaving the old volume control available in the menus - not in the taskbar by default, not shipping the old applet - sounds like a pretty OK compromise to me
jwbthe adamw proposal, in the menu, installed by default
adamwmezcalero: "I want to record something" is not a niche use.
mezcaleroadamw: you can record very easily with pa
adamwmezcalero: if you want to record from mic in and your card happens to default to line in, at present, you have no option but figuring out how to do "alsamixer -c0 -Vcapture"
f13mezcalero: I want to use voip isn't niche either.
mezcaleroall these cases are cases where mic is used
mic should be default
adamwmezcalero: but you can't select the correct input channel with g-v-c at present. this is acknowledged by lennart and planned for f12 timeframe. it is not at issue.
f13mezcalero: which mic, and how do you change it?
jwbstop arguing the same damn points over and over
mezcaleroline-in should be the option that can be switched too if people want to
if mic was not the default for you
then file a abug against alsa
adamwmezcalero: then what if you want to record from line-in and it defaults to mic? or you have two mic inputs and you want to use the other one? these are not niche cases. please stop arguing the point.
f13we're digressing again.
dwmw2Proposal: FESCo wants adamw's package approved asap and shipped in F11 by default
mezcaleroi think 90% of all cases were recording is involved it is from a mic, not line-in
adamwi think you are pulling numbers out of your ass.
f13mezcalero: one thing you didn't consider about your handfull of people is that many of them spend a significant amount of time trying to help new and lost users, and don't find the fallback of alsamixer acceptable.
mezcaleroand the 10% remaing i would *not* call a niche usage
mezcalerobut as i said this will be fixed for f12
mharrisdwmw2: +1 :)
dwmw2please can all non-fesco people be silent, and all fesco people limit themselves to '+1' or '-1' or reasonable variations on the above, just for a mo,ment?
f13mezcalero: we don't really expect the desktop people to be spending a lot of time helping users, history and all that.
ixsdwmw2: +1
dwmw2: strike that
* dwmw2 facepalms
mclasenf13: thanks, nice one
f13mclasen: am I wrong?
mclasenf13: I'll keep that in mind
nirikdwmw2: +1 (I assume you mean default in the desktop spin, not all spins?)
f13mclasen: do you really spend a lot of time in #fedora or fedora-list helping users?
dwmw2I mean the default spin, so yes.
sharkczdwmw2: +1
mezcalerof13: i certainly spent too much time on fedora-devel@ being insulted
nirikI think this is a good compromise between the desktop folks wanting to have the new volume control by default and allowing users with use cases that are not supported a easy to find fallback.
mclasenf13: no, I don't. I don't expect you either...
bpepplemezcalero: agreed. you've taken a lot more abuse than you should in those threads.
f13mclasen: I didn't claim that I did.
nirikthe most frequent thing in #fedora is telling people to use alsamixer -c0 to adjust volume so they get any sound.
f13mclasen: however people like adamw and nirik and others in FESCo do.
* nirik does spend far too much time in #fedora.
wwoodsSince it's come to this, I think we can say that the QA Team recommendation is that the VolumeControl feature does *not* match its original specification and should therefore be deferred to F12 *unless* there's some other way provided cover the missing bits of functionality - e.g. providing the old mixer UI somewhere in the menus.
adamw(mostly i'm on the forums, not fedora-list or irc. but yes, lots of user assistance.)
nirik(but note that we don't have a bunch of f11 people in there yet)
wwoodsadamw: does that sound right?
mezcalerowwoods: uh????
adamwwwoods: well, it's put a bit harsher than i'd really mean.
dwmw2that sounds like we have +2 for a proposal of 'revert the VolumeControl feature'
wwoodsyeah, well
* nirik did not vote to revert.
* bpepple didn't either.
* sharkcz too
f13 thinks that there are too many proposals out.
adamwwwoods is speaking on behalf of the QA team, not fesco.
wwoodsI'm not a FESCo member, so don't count this
dwmw2oh, right.
wwoodsit's just a recommendation.
dwmw2I think we're going round in circles.
dwmw2Proposal: FESCo wants adamw's package approved asap and shipped in F11 by default
* nirik suspects again that we won't get anything voted on/done here. ;)
f13<dwmw2> Proposal: FESCo wants adamw's package approved asap and shipped in F11 by default
dwmw2(in the default/desktop spin, that is)
* nirik already voted +1. I think its a ok compromise for f11, and hopefully can get yanked for f12.
wwoodsmezcalero: AFAICT bits of the scope are incomplete - as discussed earlier. (simplifying the stuff ALSA provides from the kernel, exposing some hardware features in the frontends)
jwbdgilmore, bpepple?
ixsI think bpepple voted already for that a few mins ago, but it'd be nice to reaffirm.
bpepple-1.  I think we sorta ambushed the desktop guys with this, since this feature has been advertised/discussed for awhile and these issues should have been brought up *way* earlier.
mezcalerowwoods: some hw features?
mezcalerowwoods: where we explicit which ones?
nirikbpepple: the feature will still be there.
halflineuhh when did fesco gain control over what's default in the desktop spin?
nirikbpepple: this is not the revert.
mclasenbepple: I couldn't agre more. It is a repeat of the empathy fiasco in f10
wwoodsmezcalero: no, just: "PulseAudio to allow supporting features in the front-ends" - I understand this to mean support for hardware features like input switching, but I might misunderstand it
nirikhalfline: when the fedora board delegated technical decisions to fesco over the Fedora project.
mezcalerowwoods: i didn't write that line, but I'd certainly not understand how you understand it
bpepplenirik: I know, but it sorta goes against what the feature proposal is.  Regardless, if I'm in the minority in that thinking, that's alright.
mezcalerowwoods: so, i think your proposal is bogus
dgilmorehalfline: its always been the case
wwoodsmezcalero: what would you take it to mean? It's not marked DONE so I assume there's something incomplete there?
mezcalerowwoods: it's like interpeting the quran
dgilmorehalfline: we have nearly always delegated it
halflinenirik: no there's some break down here.  the desktop spin defaults are controled by the desktop team
mezcalerowwoods: the feature is marked 100%
halflineand feature pages are a marketing thing
mezcalerowwoods: so if you want me to add to 100% there i am happy to do that fo your
nirikhalfline: I would disagree. If you think that is not the case, please feel free to bring it up to the board?
halflinea rejected feature doesn't mean "doesn't go in", it means "isn't marketed"
jwbthat is true
dgilmorehalfline: not always
dwmw2nirik: he's right. The defaults are controlled by the desktop team for their spin. If, on the other hand, they want to call it 'Fedora'.... :)
jwbhowever defaults and inclusions can still be changed by FESCo
f13halfline: there is no breakdown, FESCo ultimately has control over everything.  That they don't use the control is because they prefer to delegate, but in cases where a compromise cannot be met...
dwmw2I still wish we could avoid that particular pissing contest though
jwbyeah, it seems pretty stupid to be talking about this right now
nirikdwmw2: we already have not... forcing a change to the desktop spin.
dwmw2f13: well, ultimately it would go to the board I suppose.
jwbthat would be sad
f13halfline: a rejected feature uses the contingency plan.  However FESCo isn't asking to reject the feature, they're asking to modify the feature
jwbthe last time the board made a technical decision was codeina
* nirik nods. This is sad all around. I don't see why the compromise is so horrible. The desktop folks seem unwilling to give any at all here.
f13that ended... swell
wwoodseverything else the board has deferred to FESCo
dwmw2how many FESCo members are here?
dwmw2is +5 -1 a 'yes' or not?
who didn't vote?
mclasennirik: I already gave you installing adams mixer
jwbwe are missing j-rod an jds2001
abadger1999-notting, j-rod, jds2001
nirikmclasen: but not by default? or you will allow it on the spin?
bpeppledwmw2: It passed with a majority.
jwband notting
adamwmclasen: er, wait - installing it by default? that's all the proposal is...
halflinef13: well my point is, (and i just came into the middle of this so i'm missing a lot of context), it doesn't seem like fesco is *asking* anything
f13halfline: you did miss a lot
dwmw2ok. For the record then:
jwbdwmw2, yes the proposal passed
dwmw2Proposal #2: FESCo doesn't believe that it's sufficient for gnome-alsamixer to be hidden in the menus, since it's the functionality that people have _lost_ from what was in the panel. FESCo would like it to be reachable that way somehow -- either through the right-click menu on the panel applet, through a button in the simple g-v-c, or something else.
adamwmclasen: we're not proposing anything running persistently or being on the panel or anything, just an app in the menus.
warrenNOTE: This isn't an applet.  It will be hidden away in menus.
jwb-1 to Proposal #2
i'm not here to dictate what upstream projects do
wwoodsand the features pages *aren't* just for marketing - the scope is supposed to represent the actual *required* functionality of the feature, so when stuff like this and Empathy aren't quite finished at Preview time we can have *some* documented criteria to determine whether it's done *enough*
dwmw2this is about what _Fedora_ does.
f13halfline: there were a number of proposals, ranging from the absurd to the compromise we've come up with
jwbthe button is upstream.  it's been answered with an emphatic no
dwmw2we can have our _own_ panel app which can run either the pa or the alsa volume thing
f13halfline: and really, the desktop team could continue to refuse and escalate to the board, but I'd rather not see that happen.
warrenMy opinion matters not much, but I would think an "Advanced" button in g-v-c would be pretty good until the advanced app is no longer needed.
mclasenadamw: I'm not happy at all about the idea to install it by default, but if that is what it takes to close this discussion
* warren expects to be chewed out by his team.
mclasenwe certainly ship more sucky software in the menus....
adamwmclasen: ok, thanks, then.
nirik-1 to proposal 2 here.
adamwmclasen: fwiw i'm happy for proposal #2 not to pass, i don't expect it will.
mclasenwarren: don't mix up things now, we're just closing this down
nirikmclasen: I sure hope it will close things.
sharkcz-1 also here
bpepple-1 also.
dwmw2ok, that's not passed then (as I expected)
is there anything further to discuss on this topic?
adamwjust a quick note: I'm not actually an approved packager for fedora
* nirik notes that changes should be done ASAP. We are super close to release.
adamwso either someone else should adopt the package or i need to get sponsored etc
nirikadamw: file a review request and I can review it for you.
adamwso, whoever wants to take that up with me, please contact me elsewhere and we'll sort it out
* dwmw2 will sponsor
dwmw2find me later, but not tonight -- I should have been in the pub an hour ago
ixsadamw: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/gnome-alsamixer/
I think the necessary tool is already in cvs.
* bpepple notes we're at the 2 hour point.
nirikok, anything further?
wwoodsmclasen: seriously - and there's a definite roadmap for improving the volume situation to the point where this won't be necessary in 3-6 months. but.. who was the last person to touch, say, s-c-bootloader?
* nirik will close the meeting in 30
nirikThanks for coming everyone!

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.5 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!