Re: Vote on the data race issue and Gecko shipping timeline

On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com> wrote:

>  2013-08-09 10:49, Robert O'Callahan skrev:
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com> wrote:
>
>>  If nobody steps up to spec down the details of the shared memory model,
>> one solution could be that the vote option becomes just that (start
>> specifying the model), for instance (similar to an earlier proposal I've
>> made):
>>
>> "Keep the current API, using a shared data model. Specify the exact
>> behavior of the shared data model in the Web Audio specification to
>> guarantee client interoperability, and work together with other parties to
>> work out what other specifications need to be updated/written, etc."
>>
>>  This would be very unfortunate, though, since it's a very high risk
>> option (we can't know for sure that it will even succeed, and if not we'd
>> be back to square one), and it's definitely much less clear what that
>> option means compared to the other two options, both in terms of the actual
>> work that has to be done, and how long it would take to finish it.
>>
>
>  I don't think it's fair to have a vote-off between two well-specified
> options and one vague option.
>
>  If no-one cares enough to specify it properly, it shouldn't be on the
> ballot.
>
>
> Well, that would require the proponents of that alternative to agree that
> we're not going to use the shared data model, which is kind of why we're
> having the voting in the first place, so it does not sound very realistic
> to be honest.
>

No, it just requires them to come up with spec text.

Rob
-- 
Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w  *
*