Re: Proposed patch for speech problems
- From: remus draica <rd baum ro>
- To: "padraig o'briain" <Padraig Obriain Sun COM>
- Cc: do baum ro, at baum ro, Bill Haneman <Bill Haneman Sun COM>, ds baum ro, gnome-accessibility-list gnome org, Peter Korn <Peter Korn Sun COM>
- Subject: Re: Proposed patch for speech problems
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:03:40 +0300
On Wednesday 18 August 2004 13:58, padraig o'briain wrote:
> remus draica wrote:
> > Hi Padraig,
> >
> > I deleted an empty line by mistake from first patch. I also missed the
> > error message when I checked. Sorry about that. The new patch is
> > attached.
> >
> > First change in _speech/libsrs/srs-gs.c_ is fix for bug 150377.
> > Second change in _speech/libsrs/srs-gs.c_ is part of fix for 150261.
>
> This change makes me nervous I do not understand the change. It looks like
> a hack rather than a fix_at_source.
Sometimes, the START marker from gnome speech may be received by gnopernicus
before returning from say function. This can be seen in http://
bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=30651&action=view, a patch for bug
150048 for the text with id = 185.
During turning off the speech (or exiting from gnopernicus, which is same
case), this situation may occur. This wariable is set when the callback is
received before returning from gnome-speech say (in this case the id of text
sent to gnome-speech is unknown) and it inform gnopernicus to react to START
marker after returning from gnome-speech say function.
The desired behaviour (and that assert was put there for it) is to _not_ have
the callback called before the returning os gnom-speech say function.
The variable is set to FALSE next time when gnopernicus speech module is
initialised again.
>
> > Change in _speech/libsrs/srs-speech.c_ is fix for 150048.
> >
> > First change in _speech/libsrs/srs-xml.c_ is fix for 149408.
> > Second change in _speech/libsrs/srs-xml.c_ is for 150261
> >
> > Changes in _srcore/srspc.c_ are for 150261 and (I suppose) 150279.
>
> The bug number 150279 is wrong.
The number is 150278.
>
> I would prefer a patch rather than a new tarball for safety reasons but
> I am nervous about this patch because of the new warning messages Dana
> reported in another email. I would also like to see bug 150261 updated. I
> do not see that we need fix for bug 149408 in cinnabar build 17.
>
This bug may be relevant desktops in other language than english. In this
case, only a part of text will be reported.
Do you prefer to remove it?
Remus
> Padraig
>
> > Do I need to create a new tarball as Bill has suggested? Let me know if
> > this is necessary.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Remus
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]