Re: [Gnash-commit] [SCM] Gnash branch, hwaccel, updated. release_0_8_9_final-1154-ge290f51

[Sandro Santilli]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 10:34:46AM -0600, Rob Savoye wrote:
> On 09/07/11 10:24, Sandro Santilli wrote:
> 
> > Would you accept this way of taking decisions or do you want to decide
> > by yourself ? Or would you prefer unanimity ? We could even get unanimity
> > if we accepted to discuss this w/out bias.
> 
>  As the Gnash maintainer, I only make a decision when we can't come to
> consensus. Normally, that waits till a disagreement goes on for a long
> period of time... In this particular case, I will agree to letting you
> change the FB GUI back to 'auto', although I dislike 'auto'. I won't
> personally make this change, as I prefer the current behavior.

I tend to touch the code only to make it better. In this case, switching
back to "auto" would not help much it unbuildable anyway, until the
regression is fixed.

>   As far as double buffering goes, I just created a task (#11337) to
> reimplement this in the near future. While some may consider this a
> regression, I don't as all the FB code has changed heavily, and it was a
> "feature" that nobody used anyway. Lets do ourselves a favor and stop
> arguing over it.

Again, I occasionally used it. If you try the working version you'll find
that double buffering made a _huge_ difference. Without double buffering
the playback is really horrible, you can't really use fb-gnash like that.

You can call it however you want, but getting next release out w/out 
a working fb-gnash would be a big regression. The sooner you fix it the
sooner we can turn it back to auto and avoid missing other future bugs by
having each build slave (be it a machine or human) build it with full
support.

--strk;

  ()   Free GIS & Flash consultant/developer
  /\   http://strk.keybit.net/services.html