Quoting Robin Bowes <robin-lists-uu/***@public.gmane.org>:
> kdf wrote:
> > Quoting Robin Bowes
> > <robin-lists-uu/***@public.gmane.org>:
> >
> > eventually, I'm sure it will. one thing at a time. everyone going
> > on about their own personal peeve, again. if the response was truly
> > equal to all in real time, nothing would get done.
>
> Hence my suggestion of a formal prioritisation of issues and a roadmap.
The basics of one are around. Maintaining it seems to be the catch. That, and
saying 'no' to requests that do not fit to the roadmap.
> > the db backend is an old issue and long overdue. after that, other
> > issues can then be taken on with much greater focus. or course, I'll
> > imply/ignore the disclaimer for those to want to be upset about the
> > particular choice of query algorithm.
>
> :)
>
> One thing I would say is that the "db backend will make everying better"
> response has been wheeled out on several occasions and I'm concerned
> that this is setting false expectation.
me too. But there are a list of bugs/feature requests that are only feasible
with the db backend. Other issues may show improvement, but its hard to tell
until the db matures a bit. some early reports from some power users are
encouraging, but there is a long way to go. hence no date, yet.
> I wasn't aware of the wiki. That looks like a step in the right
> direction. However, the slimserver page has not been updated since 7th
> Aug 2004.
There's that maintenance thing :)
> Also, only 14 out of 352 bugs have Target Milestone changed after
> 01/01/1970 (this was the only way I could work out to show all bugs with
> a target milestone assigned).
The option is there, and it was used specifically for one release. 14 of 352
would seem to only take into account the open bugs. I totally agree that there
should be more use of the target milestone, but at least the option has been
made available.
>
> >> Talking of roadmap, in my experience quality of software improves
> >> greatly if developers are working to some sort of roadmap. I
> >> suggest that a medium-term plan is drawn up listing what changes
> >> are planned for successive releases of slimserver. This gives
> >> developers targets to aim for and ensures the important issues are
> >> addressed rather than being overlooked for new, more sexy changes.
> >
> >
> > again, check the wiki. However, I can empathise with you on one
> > level, in that development does tend to follow rants sometimes more
> > than plan. of course, this can end up being counter productive, in
> > that speaking for change is also expecting a response to rant.
>
> Again, this shows the value of a roadmap and a more organised
> development schedule.
well, I can only speak to what has been made public. Slim Devices is incredibly
open with information, but I expect that there is a lot more that doesn't
really make it to the public venues. This is not to suggest a flaw, but just
the nature of things. Even in a projet group of 6 engineers, not every
conversation or decision is immediately brought to the attention of all 6.
Having it all public would be nice, but it does take someone away from the
actual writing and testing of slimserver.
> That's not what I'm getting at. I just want to see issues prioritised
> and addressed in priority order.
>
> > DB may not be the top priority for all, but focussing on
> > it, and getting it done is still good for all concerned. Then, at
> > least, that part will work and we can all then focus on the next big
> > thing. What gets priority is a simple choice. Not everyone will
> > agree to a given choice.
>
> From the wiki:
>
> "The main goals of the SlimServer project in the near term, in rough
> priority order, are:
>
> * Stability and performance - No crashers, quick startup, no skips,
> less memory usage.
> * Ease of setup and use - Tackle the issues that make it hard for
> newbies to install and use the product.
> * More audio sources - Do what it takes - formats, DRM, integration
> with external audio providers - to make sure our users are not limited
> in their listening options.
> * Large library support - Ensure that we make it easy to manage and
> use large music collections.
> * Significant differentiating or parity features - Continue to make
> sure that SlimServer and Slim Devices hardware are the best options out
> there."
>
> However, I don't see these priorities reflected in the work that is
> being done.
Stability and performance: the db backend has been a major issue for a long time
and has always been about performance. its not reflected in the results yet,
but those who first began putting out the suggestions/requests/demands for a db
all claim that a db is the only way to get the level of performance users want
from slimserver.
Ease of setup: well, I'm hard pressed to think of specific examples for this.
Of course, I've never used the 'easy' installs. Most certainly, I have seen
default values and menu arrangements change in recent months with the intent of
making things easier to use.
more audio sources: APE has been added recently. DRM is something we are less
likely to hear about in progress reports. That kind of thing falls more into
the realm of legal haggling. AlienBBC keeps expanding its ability to handle
more streams. The whole Internet Radio featureset is also very recent and
subsequent to those entries in the wiki.
Large Library Support: the db is a prerequisite to this. The browsedb interface
came in yesterday. This begins to show how the data can be manipulated and
displayed. Also, since this wiki entry, features have been added to edit
playlists.
Parity Features: this is a very open item. I tend to think that slimserver is a
superb product, so its hard to single out specific features that must be added
in order to be more like another product. However, the bugs list is there for
anyone to file feature requests. Some of those requests fall into this
category.
> > As everyone here knows, I'm very vocal and opinionated. Those
> > opinions are not lost simply becuase the SlimDevices focus is
> > elsewhere. I just choose to put my efforts where they lead. Right
> > now, that's the DB. overall UI, streaming reliability, audio quality
> > are all valid issues, but are just something to deal with after the
> > current chosen focus. When the time comes, I'll be just as vocal
> > about those :)
>
> You see, I would say that's a shame. You obviously have a lot to offer
> and are are v. knowledgeable about slimserver. If I were managing your
> effort I would attempt to get you to work in areas that address the
> stated priorities of the project.
Well, I'd say we probably share the same ideals, but are approaching from
different perspectives. I feel I AM contributing to the priority areas.
Performance and Stability are umbrella issues. The database is the current,
specific task to address performance. I also feel that debating issues like
this are also a part of addressing performance. I will admit that my
particular stance on documentation doesn't place a very high priority on
formally writing out, for all to see, what I'm doing and why.
>
> As I said above, I want to help and I am pursuing a lead which might
> help with the architecture issues. It's very embryonic at the moment and
> might not come to anything but I'll go public when I've gathered a
> little more information.
sounds great. The desire to help is always a good thing. I've dumped just
about everything I know at you already, save to suggest joining the checkins
mailing list. Its just the cvs checkin notices, but the comments can sometimes
offer a good view of the intent behind the changes.
-kdf