On Jun 25, 2006, at 5:43 AM, Tim Blechmann wrote:
On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 14:51 -0700, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I suppose it would be possible if the DD devs started submitted patches to the patch tracker. Miller accepts the majority of them these days.
i admire you enthusiasm, but from my own experience, i must state, that the pd development process is not as interactive as you describe ... the biggest problem is that no one knows, if a patch will apply to future versions of pd ... i did a lot of porting of patches from 0.38 to 0.39, and i definitely don't want to go through this process again ...
So there has been much talk over the years about doing this, I think there needs to be more action. Any volunteers?
well, i guess, the volunteers are there and they took action ... but they don't work on miller's branch ... matju and chun did quite some work on desire data, forking from miller's pd, and i'm writing my own engine, which will be combined with christian klippel's gui 'karma' ... while pnpd/karma is rewritten from scratch and thus wouldn't be interesting for the future of the pd development, i guess, that the desire data developers doubt that their code would be included into miller's pd ... (this is somehow understandable, as it's not only a 5 lines patch) i was following this discussion with great interest, but i'm still remembering guenter's tool tips patch, that where written for 0.38 and ported to 0.39 ... they are not a big patch, but it never made it into miller's pd ...
imo, the problem of pd's development is not the lack of ideas, but the lack of collaboration ...
I'll second that. There is a lot of good development going on in Miller's Pd, pd-devel, and desire-data, too bad it can't be all in the same package. But yes, porting patches is not a fun way to spend time.
.hc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity. - Bill Moyers