On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Georg Holzmann wrote:
No, but you said it yourself: you joined (after impure data) the
pd_devel branch so that you can also benefit from those improvements ...
Yes, but that was conditional to having such improvements. I think that
I was somewhat mistaken when I first joined devel_0_39, I thought that
it was going to be somewhat more dynamic than that. Turns out that:
1. I had the delusion that there were more developers working on
devel_0_39, but I hadn't counted. Turned out that it wasn't true.
2. Tim is basically on the way out: keeps using pd for
backwards-compatibility reasons.
3. Thomas has a hidden branch because devel_0_39 is too dangerous
because I could be committing files in it.
4. At this point (these months...), the only other regular contributors
to devel_0_39 are Chun Lee and myself.
Now there is already the main and devel/desire_data branch and I think
such a marginal problem as you have (the beautification ...) should not
be the reason for one more branch ...
Well, you shouldn't confuse the actual with problem, with something that
is just a trigger (a catalyser) for change. Thomas's problem is just an
occasion for taking the time for a reality check about the issue, and
summarise all the issues that have accumulated during the 16 months of
having devel_0_39 and desiredata two-in-one.
I don't see the branching as being a big change, nor as a surprise, nor as
being weird or out-of-place or bad manners.
That said, I don't want to switch to another repository as of now; I don't
see its advantages as being greater than its inconvenients.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju
| Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
_______________________________________________
PD-dev mailing list
PD-dev@iem.at
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
