[vdr] [ANNOUNCE] VDR developer version 1.7.17

Klaus Schmidinger Klaus.Schmidinger at tvdr.de
Sun Mar 27 16:45:28 CEST 2011

On 20.03.2011 21:07, Udo Richter wrote:
> Am 20.03.2011 13:31, schrieb Klaus Schmidinger:
>> On 20.03.2011 12:46, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
>>> I have attached a patch that implements this.
>>> Would this be ok?
>> Sorry, there was a line missing that makes sure the initial load
>> takes place. Attached is a revised version of the patch.
> You're too fast for me.... :D
> I like the general idea, but I have some points about it:
> - Disappearing marks or replacing marks by older versions is not detected.

Ok, that would be the

   if (LastModified != lastFileTime)

change, agreed.

> - Double updates within one second may get lost.
> - I don't think that it hurts to poll every 10 seconds, so IMHO we can
> drop the 3600s check.

I'd still like to phase that out, because for such old marks files
it just doesn't make sense to poll them any more.

> - When in pause mode with the progress bar on OSD, the OSD doesn't get
> updated when the marks get reloaded.
> After some iterations I've ended with the attached patch that fixes the
> first two issues, and is less messy with lastFileTime. Any change of
> file time will be detected, and the new lastChange covers cases where no
> marks file is present. There's a small gap with the lastFileTime == t
> check on NFS volumes with unsynced clocks, but thats another story.
> The third point is a matter of taste, and the fourth is not that important.

Can you please rewrite your patch so that it keeps the original 'd'
variable? I liked the fact that the 'nextUpdate' variable was incremented
in *one* place, and not in several places. Made the whole thing more
transparent to me. Besides, I could then see what you have *actually*
changed ;-)


More information about the vdr mailing list