If anyone wants git access to pd-l2ork with the intent of continuing to develop cyclone under the same name including bug fixes and feature additions to existing as well as introducing new objects, please email me off-list.
Best, -- Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A. Associate Professor Computer Music ICAT Senior Fellow Director -- DISIS, L2Ork Virginia Tech School of Performing Arts – 0141 Blacksburg, VA 24061 (540) 231-6139 i...@vt.edu www.performingarts.vt.edu disis.icat.vt.edu l2ork.icat.vt.edu ico.bukvic.net On Feb 23, 2016 4:47 PM, "Alexandre Torres Porres" <por...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm seconding Dan on this, name ideas was something being proposed to me > and all before Fred shared his intention to stop working on "cyclone". I > didn't even liked the idea of forking cyclone then, the reason being that > there was no significant change for for projects, one only being able to be > updated... > > > now, from a previous thread > > 2016-02-20 15:57 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber <brbrof...@gmail.com>: > >> If a Max 4.6 compatibility library is really necessary, perhaps that >> could be the fork with the new name. >> > > I agree to Matt on this too, but with the remark that Max 4.6 > compatibility would also be present in the updates and further development > of cyclone > > keeping it simple, the whole issue camos with some of us wanting to > collaborate and work on updates of cyclone, and the current maintainer > having issues with it, it's not that he didn't want to spend his time > working on it, more like he was against that others would help him do that. > > do we really need to fork in order to update a library keeping its > original goal? > > I'm ok with whatever the community think it's best. I already started > working a lot on this and now I'm just on it, 20 new objects in the way, a > whole revision of all help files going on, it's happening... > > cheers > > 2016-02-23 18:08 GMT-03:00 Dan Wilcox <danomat...@gmail.com>: > >> If neither krzysztof not Fred plan to continue development, why can’t it >> continue under the same name? (Keeping attribution of course!) I’d argue >> multiple libraries is more confusing to the user especially when they all >> provide roughly the same functionality but the main one is now very out of >> date. That, plus the fact that urging people to use [declare -lib cyclone] >> now requires urging people to do a batch find/replace for “cyclone” when, >> again, the functionality is the same. >> >> -------- >> Dan Wilcox >> @danomatika <https://twitter.com/danomatika> >> danomatika.com >> robotcowboy.com >> >> On Feb 23, 2016, at 1:32 PM, pd-list-requ...@lists.iem.at wrote: >> >> i therefore ask both fred and alexandre to change the name of their >> library, so that they cannot be confused with both the original cyclone >> library and with each other: neither of the forks is an (or /the/) >> "official" fork. >> for what it is worth, git makes it easy to incorporate changes between >> forks (using pull requests, cherry picking,...) even if the names are >> different! >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
