From alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz  Tue Mar  2 16:47:39 1999
Received: from neutrino.kek.jp (root@neutrino.kek.jp [130.87.218.139])
	by marvin.jcu.cz (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA07961
	for <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 16:44:39 +0100
Received: from lbscissors.kek.jp (root@lbscissors.kek.jp [130.87.218.173]) by neutrino.kek.jp (8.8.8+2.7Wbeta7/3.4W3) with ESMTP id AAA23583 for <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 00:44:20 +0900
Received: from lbscissors.kek.jp (really [127.0.0.1]) by neutrino.kek.jp
	via in.smtpd with esmtp (ident sharkey using rfc1413)
	id <m10HrLI-000sLNC@lbscissors.kek.jp> (Debian Smail3.2.0.102)
	for <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 00:44:20 +0900 (JST) 
Message-Id: <m10HrLI-000sLNC@lbscissors.kek.jp>
To: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
From: sharkey@ale.physics.sunysb.edu
Subject: Re: updated call.html 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 01 Mar 1999 15:38:34 EST."
             <Pine.SOL.4.05.9903011154210.12103-300000@qix.rs.itd.umich.edu> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 00:44:19 +0900
Reply-To: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
Sender: alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz
Precedence: list

> Here is version 0.0.2 of call.html. (html and text versions)
> 
> I'd like to take a more proactive role in maintaining this document.
> Please email suggestions or improvements to me. 
>  
> Eric, you mentioned being interested in adding to this document. I would
> appreciate it if you have it a thorough review. 

Sure.  As Kevin mentioned, there are a few small grammatical problems, but
I won't comment on them at the moment.  (Yes, Kevin, your comments are
welcome, too. :)  Send them in.)

In general, I think it's pretty good.  I just have a few small points.

For the quote from Linus, it would be good to provide a hyperlink to the
unedited text.  Or even better, a link to the Kernel section of the
1999/02/11 edition of the Linux Weekly News.

http://lwn.net/1999/0211/kernel.phtml

It contains links to the message I quoted, plus a few other messages and some
general discussion on the topic.


You mention the "matrix for various versions".  I don't think that will be
well understood by people unfamiliar with Linux.  It might be good to
include a table with the architecture names along one side, and Stable,
Stable/SMP, Devel, Devel/SMP, etc. along the other side so that people
can actually see just what they're up against when it comes to the number
of possible configurations.


Finally, I don't think it's realistic to call ALSA an early beta release.
There's too much changing right now.  It's alpha level code, we should call
it that.  (Some parts of it are clearly beta, but as a whole, it's alpha.)


Eric


