--- On Tue, 6/28/11, Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at wrote:
From: Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at Subject: Re: [PD-dev] packaging the pddp docs To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: pd-dev@iem.at Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2011, 11:00 PM
On Jun 28, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Tue, 6/28/11, Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at
wrote:
From: Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at Subject: Re: [PD-dev] packaging the pddp docs To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@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
wrote:
From: Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at Subject: Re: [PD-dev] packaging the pddp
docs
To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@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.
Speaking of which: Just found a crasher bug with the $@ in pd-extended nightly build: Bug ID: 3342314
.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