On Jun 28, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Tue, 6/28/11, Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at> wrote:
From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at>
Subject: Re: [PD-dev] packaging the pddp docs
To: "Jonathan Wilkes" <jancs...@yahoo.com>
Cc: pd-dev@iem.at
Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2011, 8:52 PM
On Jun 28, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Tue, 6/28/11, Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at>
wrote:
From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at>
Subject: Re: [PD-dev] packaging the pddp docs
To: "Jonathan Wilkes" <jancs...@yahoo.com>
Cc: pd-dev@iem.at
Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2011, 7:20 PM
On Jun 28, 2011, at 1:10 PM, Jonathan Wilkes
wrote:
I'm already kind of doing that with
pd-l2ork.
I've revised Miller's
control/audio/ds tutorials.
Pd-l2ork has
fixed
the crasher bug when
a patch closes itself, so I've got a
navigation
toolbar in those
tutorials
that is currently incompatible with
pd-extended/vanilla.
I had no idea. Ico seems to work on
his
own. It
would be great to
have those bug fixes submitted to the
patch
tracker.
The patch
tracker is what Miller, IOhannes, Martin
Peach, me
and
others use for
keeping track of patches that are meant to
go
into
pure-data core.
He's also working off 0.42 currently, so
submitting to
the
tracker would be pointless. I think
someone was
working
to port the changes forward to 0.43, but Ico
is
currently
on vacation and I'm not sure where they are in
the
process.
I merged in a couple things from l2ork, like Joe
Sarlo's
Magic Glass and inlet/outlet highlighting.
More
patches would be great to have.
As far as I understand there are a lot of changes in
Pd-l2ork
to core Pd, and if you accepted them into Pd-extended
it would
introduce more discrepancies between vanilla and
extended. If
that's a possibility you'd entertain to get the some
of the
functionality that pd-l2ork adds, then I can help with
this
process.
Bug fixes should definitely be included, other patches are
on a case by case basis. Accepting patches is a time
consuming process, especially if the patch submitted are not
super clean or has not been thoroughly tested. That's
the main reason for patches to be rejected or ignored.
I've gone thru a lot of patches from l2ork before, and
found that they were not well tested, sometimes didn't even
apply cleanly, and sometimes introduced new bugs. It
seems that Ico didn't want to work thru the patch process,
and instead is working on a fork. That's a good way to
develop solid, well tested patches so it could be that a lot
of the l2ork stuff is ready to be resubmitted.
Well, like I said, it's still based off 0.42. When it gets ported
to 0.43, maybe we can figure out a way to do this.
While the pd-gui Tcl code is very different, most of the pd C code was
unchanged in 0.42 --> 0.43. So stuff that doesn't really touch the
Tcl code should be really easy to apply to 0.43.
.hc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are
deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from
scarcity." -John Gilmore
_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@iem.at
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
