Re: [orca-list] Speech Dispatcher and OpenTTS

[Steve Holmes <steve holmes88 gmail com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Well, I would probably bet that Monday could be soon enough.  I just
thought it was easier for people to test if it were in git master.  I
know I find it easier to test than to pull a patch and hope it still
fits whatever git pull I'm working with at the time.

Basically, OpenTTS is a fork of Speech Dispatcher and in case it takes
off and becomes a viable alternative to speech dispatcher, Orca will
be ready to use it.  In fact, the latest versions of OpenTTS won't
work with Orca unless the patch goes in at some point.  The patch at
this point merely creates another speechfactory module and is
presently cloned from speechdispatcherfactory.py.  Future evolutions
of OpenTTS may take the openttsfactory.py down a path that could be
quite a bit different from speechdispatcherfactory.py.  So hope this
explanation isn't too wordy.  

Bottom line: I haven't run into any trouble using Open TTS thus far
with my new module here.

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 09:29:42PM -0400, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
> Hey Steve.
>
> > I just learned that the Open TTS team wants to start a freeze by the
> > end of the week so a stable public release can be put out.  Given
> > this, how soon can the patch supplied with bug #618927 be applied to
> > git?
>
> Because I'd like even our "unstable" releases to be relatively stable,
> and because our next unstable release is Monday.... I would rather wait
> on it being committed to master until after I do that release. But
> having said that.... If there's really a need for it to go into Orca git
> master sooner.... (And if so, mind my asking what it is?)
>
> > Does anyone else have to test from the patch first?
>
> If you're sure it's super stable, and some of the active Orca + OpenTTS
> folks (Luke, Bill, Trev, etc.) have tested it thoroughly and agree with
> you, I'd commit it prior to Monday.
>
> Alternatively, if Jon has had the time to look it over and give it some
> decent testing, then I'd defer to his judgment.
>
> Does that make sense?
> --joanie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEAREDAAYFAkvzZUcACgkQWSjv55S0LfGO4ACgvyS4D5QGwfd4Iux1kUrRApB1
i+UAn0DBNqXwp2H6vshSKrpufHJ8Qwqv
=RSYJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----