[mythtv] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pvr-350 performance patch - simplified

[John Harvey]

Maybe but I had nothing to do with that and I know quite a lot of effort
went into providing backwards compatibility for Myth.

The real issue is that 0.2 hasn't been released and I don't actually see any
way that it will be but that discussion is for the ivtv list.
I'm not sure about the "keep changing" as far as I know there was only one
change between 0.1.9 and 0.2. I have no idea about before 0.1.9 though.

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mythtv-dev-bounces at mythtv.org [mailto:mythtv-dev-bounces at mythtv.org]
> On Behalf Of David Engel
> Sent: 04 February 2005 22:56
> To: Development of mythtv
> Subject: [mythtv] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pvr-350 performance patch -
> simplified
> 
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 08:33:56PM -0000, John Harvey wrote:
> > No 0.2 had a compatibility interface to support 0.1.9.
> > So the new driver is backwards compatible.
> 
> That's all well and good, as it should be.
> 
> > 0.1.9 is not forwards compatible which is the dependency you have added.
> >
> > As for a bug in the driver, I believe it is considered to be Alpha and
> > therefore subject to change.
> 
> My point is there was no good reason for breaking things.  The ioctl
> numbers didn't have to be changed from 'just some values I picked for
> now'.  New names could have been used for the more correct _IO* macro
> versions.  At some future date when the driver has really stablized,
> the old ioctls could be removed.
> 
> Doing it the way it was done just makes it harder for applications to
> take advantage of features in newer drivers, but still be compatible
> with older ones.
> 
> David
> --
> David Engel
> gigem at comcast.net