On Jul 17, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Sat, 7/9/11, Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at> wrote:
Try getting a patch into the Linux kernel,
that'll make Pd seem like cake ;-)
Yes, I would hope that making changes to the core of the largest
free software project in the history of computing is a wee bit more
difficult than making changes to Pd.
It's easy to use the Linux project as a reference, to justify that
submitting changes to Pd ought to remain hard and that things are
just fine as they are now. After all, the Linux project is a well-
respected success story, nevermind that it's a project so different
from pd in many ways.
Just more expressions of millercentrism... nothing to see, move
along...
Think about why it remains hard. Managing patches is a lot of work,
and its not fun, unless the patch happens to fix something that you
want fixed. This is almost all work on people's own time.
Start a fork, git makes it much easier. Then you can have your own
version that includes every patch that you want it to. DesireData was
a great effort, pd-devel too. Pd-extended is another example, as well
as pd_l2ork. If we all use git forked from Miller's pure-data git it
makes keeping in sync vastly easier than before. Git has a steep
learning curve. Take 2 days to really study and learn it, and it will
save you vast amount of time tracking code and bisecting for patches.
Having multiple forks in rough sync all working with git means that
more patches get accepted, written, tested, etc.
.hc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer science is no more related to the computer than astronomy is
related to the telescope. -Edsger Dykstra
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
