Brian McFee

> I actually had a think about this yesterday; one way to update the active instances would be "event"-based callback functions, given to the "original" Mux, somewhat Keras-like in style....

@cjacoby Thanks -- keep me posted. This might be the last blocker on 2.0, so it'd be good to sort out its status soon.

Awesome, thanks for digging into this! I've reassigned to 2.1.

I'm still not 100% sure how this is going to work. Do callback objects get propagated to the activated copy of a mux? What does the callback API look like...

Sorry to take so long in responding to this! (What's 18 months between friends, anyway...) I like the general idea here, but I'm a little wary of scope. Much of...

If you want to take the lead on it, for sure! I'm planning to sprint on librosa stuff, but happy to help out here as well.

:+1: let's do it. As for specs... it's a rather complicated beast. If you've ever looked inside mux, well... I apologize. Mux is actually doing a few different things: 1....

> 1. What the objective of these changes are? The current algorithm works as follows: 1. Activate a number of streams 2. Until done: a. select a stream at random...

I think this could impact #49. What do yall @ejhumphrey @cjacoby think about dropping support for legacy python so that we can re-design the mux entirely around asyncio in 1.0?

Okay.. well, given [pep525](https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.6.html), it sounds like you can't mix asyncio with generators until python 3.6? In that case, would this mean that pescador becomes >=3.6 only? Or is there...