Hallo, guenter geiger hat gesagt: // guenter geiger wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Patches MSP Core devel_0_37
IMO, devel should loose its version number suffix. Everywhere. ;)
There is a devel_0_35, devel_0_36 too, there might be a devel_0_38. The version numbers do have a very good reason in CVS, because the development model of pd is not the same as in other free software projects. The development branch does not become automatically the stable one.
But it does become the next devel branch eventually.
Having different tags depending on the versions helps to identify the changes.
I still don't get the reason for having a "devel_version" branch. IMO the main "devel" branch should be just that, a "devel" branch, which should be as current and experimental as possible.
I don't see why anyone would still need to work on a "devel_0_36" branch? 0_36 is obsolete. The same will happen to "devel_0_37", when a "devel_0_38" is created. The advantage of having one consistently named "devel"-banch is, that I wouldn't need to change my "cvs co" options with every new release. Also it would make clearer, that "devel" is a different, but somehow parallel evolution of some "MAIN" branch.
What I would prefer: Before "devel" is brought up to the next MAIN version, there should be a "freeze" of "devel" into "devel_XX". Then changes from MAIN would get incorporated and "devel" would still be "devel", just an updated one.
Anyway, this is just my opinion, and you shouldn't take this as too important, as I don't work directly on Pd-core, and in no way do I intend to force my preferences onto anybody else.
However I do think, that a section for patches in the patch tracker should not mention the version number, as this will make the handling of patches - which are date-dependent anyway - harder: We would need to add a tracker for every devel_X release.
Ciao