<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Kevin Kofler <<a href="mailto:kevin.kofler@chello.at">kevin.kofler@chello.at</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="Ih2E3d">Paulo Cavalcanti wrote: > I really do not understand why not going straight to 1.0.19 > instead of patching 1.0.17 again. I agree alsa-1.0.18 > had a lot of problems, but the fixes are in alsa 1.0.19. </div>I also think reverting is usually a bad solution, move forward, not backwards. The reversion probably reintroduced some bugs that 1.0.18 had fixed and regressed hardware support. That said, I don't know the specifics of this case: are we sure 1.0.19 fixes the regressions? </blockquote><div> I have been installing new alsa versions, one day after the official release, since 1.0.15. I also tried many release-candidates and snapshots. It took me only 15 min to realize that 1.0.18 had problems for some of my computers. What kind of tests have been performed before Fedora moved to 1.0.18 (a couple of months later), I do not know. Alsa 1.0.19 has some new models for some codecs, such as no-jd (no jack detection) that could be useful to a lot of people, and It works flawlessly for me. But I agree that we need a wider set of hardware to test. In my opinion, these tests have to be performed in advance, using external modules, and not waiting for a new kernel to come up. </div></div> My hardware has always been Intel onboard sound (desktops/laptops). Therefore, very common. There are two things a typical user can not put up with: sound and video problems. -- Paulo Roma Cavalcanti LCG - UFRJ