[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: implementation plan for music streams
From: |
Erik Sandberg |
Subject: |
Re: implementation plan for music streams |
Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2006 21:17:44 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.8.3 |
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 20.46, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> > I'd start with 4. because they're independent from the rest, and we can
> > readily test the rest of those.
The reason for my ordering, is that 3 can be used to verify that 4 works.
BTW, (1-3) are completely independent of (4), and I have just finished step
(1) locally. If you insist on getting (4) done before (1), then that's
perfectly OK with me; but is it OK for you to look at my patch for (1) while
I do (4)? I guess (1) is the step which requires the longest discussion, so
it might be good to start the discussion early.
--
Erik
- implementation plan for music streams, Erik Sandberg, 2006/04/04
- Re: implementation plan for music streams, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/04/04
- Re: implementation plan for music streams, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/04/04
- Re: implementation plan for music streams,
Erik Sandberg <=
- Re: implementation plan for music streams, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/04/04
- Re: implementation plan for music streams, Erik Sandberg, 2006/04/04
- Re: implementation plan for music streams, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/04/05
- Re: implementation plan for music streams, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/04/05
- Re: implementation plan for music streams, Erik Sandberg, 2006/04/26
- Re: implementation plan for music streams, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/04/27
Re: implementation plan for music streams, Erik Sandberg, 2006/04/05