> while i appreciate your work with pd-l2ork, i think it would be great if > you would be trying to get the fixes into "upstream" (where you forked > from).
I did, but many fixes never got anywhere (we had this discussion a while ago), and while in the early days I spent most of my time providing additional documentation to Hans and others and making arguments on why they should be accepted which resulted in less than dozen fixes in the first year out of which only a few actually made it upstream, I am now running a fork that has 200+ improvements and fixes in approx. the same amount of time and have arrived at a rock-solid system* and have no interest in going back to a platform that may be stable on release and crash in another. Sure, I am missing a few novel features, but if the current version caters to my (perhaps somewhat specific) needs, there is no reason to go back. FWIW, Hans has started taking some of our patches and merging it upstream (e.g. magicglass that I ported and cleaned up that has been sitting on the sourceforge database for over half a decade untouched) which is great and I would love to see the rest of it there as well. It is just that this way Hans will have to review it (which is something he would have to do anyhow), and merge it at his discretion, rather than me having to spend copious amounts of time to promote adoption of such patches and providing context that is difficult to make unless one spends some time studying the issue on their own... *based on experiences from ongoing L2Ork rehearsals involving dozen or more networked performers. Best wishes, Ico _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
