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

Re: Really, ...

Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> On 30/11/2012 10:16, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > However, current PulseAudio is still quite buggy. But I wouldn't place

> Is it, really? I haven't noticed any major issues with Pulseaudio in the past
> couple of years running Ubuntu. That and sound has worked out of the box with
> all the Ubuntu and Fedora systems I've installed in the past couple of months.

I looked into it because there had been complaints about issues related
to PulseAudio from users, and I was able to quickly find and analyze
several bugs with no prior familiarity with the code. I do consider
myself better than an "usual" developer, and could probably find some
bugs in most projects, but I think that's still pretty strong evidence
against current PulseAudio being polished code.

Here's an example of one of the nastier bugs:

I first sent a patch fixing that bug. A PulseAudio developer then posted
an alternative approach to fixing the issue a month later. Then nothing
happened for 2.5 more months until the fix was finally committed. So I
think bug fixing for known bugs is not working particularly efficiently

Reply to: