On 3 July 2014 16:51, Jussi Kukkonen <jussi.kukkonen(a)intel.com> wrote:
I've gone through the open dleyna issues in the last couple of
days
for rough scheduling: I've used a "for-next" label with the meaning
"These are low hanging fruit or otherwise good ideas I'll try to fix
in the next week or so".
Followup on this:
dleyna-core:
* 2 build system issues fixed
* 1 bug left with "for-next" label:
https://github.com/01org/dleyna-core/pull/43
I don't see it as a blocker (if dbus goes away, dleyna is pretty
useless in any case)
dleyna-renderer:
* 6 issues fixed
* 3 left with "for-next" label
https://github.com/01org/dleyna-renderer/issues/140
- not 100% sure what should be fixed
https://github.com/01org/dleyna-renderer/pull/132 (and 114)
- The idea is certainly good but the uuid parsing is problematic since
we can't make assumptions about the format (early specs did not
define the format). Not a blocker
https://github.com/01org/dleyna-renderer/issues/104
- I agree with the idea of fetching introspection data on device
construction,
but have not done anything yet. I don't think we have outstanding crashes
so this doesn't need to block anything.
dleyna-server:
* 3 issues fixed
* 2 left in "for-next" label
https://github.com/01org/dleyna-server/pull/131
- this is the same object path improvement as dleyna-renderer/pull/132 --
shouldn't block in my opinion.
https://github.com/01org/dleyna-server/issues/133
- Crash if device does not provide the services we expect. I'm
looking at this now.
Would be good to get fixed.
Just as reminder: there are more issues, this list was just for the
things I figured we might fix now-ish.
Jussi