Re: [CfC] Re: Consensus gathering for the Dezippering issue

Hello Olivier,

Wednesday, December 4, 2013, 11:52:29 AM, you wrote:

> On 3 Dec 2013, at 19:58, Chris Lowis <> wrote:
>> On the call the participants reached a consensus to:
>> 1) Keep dezippering in the spec
>> 2) Apply it universally to all parameters (such that there are no
>> "edge cases" in the spec
>> 3) Define it in terms of one of the other methods (probably
>> exponentialRampToValueAtTime) to simplify the spec and also to
>> indicate to developers how to achieve parameter changes without
>> dezippering by using those methods directly.
>> I think Olivier would like to consider this a Call for Consensus, so
>> if I've missed anything, please say so. Otherwise, if we agree on the
>> above approach then we can start turning this into a PR against the
>> current spec.

> Yes. Let's set a deadline on now()+1 week (that is 2013-12-11) for consensus on the approach.

My two centimes:

> * Consensus on point 1) above
Yes, dezippering should be kept in the spec

> * Consensus on point 2) above
yes (edge cases are bad and all need to be tested, which is harder
than no edge cases)

> * Consensus in principle on point 3) above, excluding detailed
> agreement on how we will define it for each/all parameters.
OK in principle but the details do matter; I can see exp ramp being a
common approach but also (depending on the parameter) a linear ramp
may be more suitable so i would not like to see the spec preclude
this. I would also not like to see deliberate quantization (as an
effect) being precluded.

Must support expramp and may support other methods would be one way,
though in general I don't like optional parts.

Best regards,

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 17:48:58 UTC