It seems then that you can not get the kind of information you might be looking for at the moment from me (alone).
No, the patch itself speaks.
Are we still trying to clarify (only) two possible update steps for this software module?
If you get more reviewed-by from others, it means already it's safer to apply. Then I can take it.
How are the statistics for such tags in the sound subsystem?
But without that, it's obviously no material to take.
Thanks for such an explanation of your current view.
I hope that mailing list readers could offer something.
Let's hope.
Are any additional communication interfaces helpful?
Did this software module become “too old”?
Mostly the hardware is too old,
Which time frames have you got in mind for acceptable software maintenance?
or the change itself isn't interesting enough.
This is another general possibility.
Can higher level transformation patterns become easier to accept by any other means?
Only if it's assured to work and not to break anything else.
Have you got any steps in mind for an improved “feeling” or “assurance”?
How much does the omission of such an useful development tool influence your concerns?
Can't judge unless I really see / use it.
I find that there are some options to consider.
Would you like to improve the software situation in any ways there?
I *hope*, but only when it's not too annoying.
Under which circumstances are you going to start working with a continuous integration system?
Regards, Markus