(one of the problems with this thread is, that i cannot refrain from answering...)
On 18.09.19 19:26, jakob skouborg wrote:
the days of "Copy of Copy of Kopie von Comb filter 1.2 (17.12.1997) final copy.pd" ought to be gone for good.
That is not what what I am saying or expecting.
no. but it's one of the consequences of suggesting a scheme like "copy of <orgfile>". all *i* am saying is that i don't want such a scheme.
It is really very simple, just start from the name of last time the patch was saved, like basically any other app in the world does today.
did you notice that i never said anything against *that*? actually, i think it's a pretty sane default (and so far everybody seems to agree).
if you want to do versioning of patches, you probably should look into a proper version-control-system, like 'git'. seriously.
I think that is overcomplicating the "save as" function a little bit.
i never said that this should go into the "save as" functionality. what i said is that if you want to manage multiple versions of a patch, you shouldn't use filenames at all, but look instead look into a system that was designed to manage multiple versions of files.
i think that the suggestion shouldn't contain spaces at all
[...]> The name heres was just an example.
<wink> so how should we fix the current behaviour if the/a suggested solution is "just an example" and bogus? </wink>
Of course I call abstractions something else, without spaces.
I am talking about main/master patches. All though you can still call them “Patchname1”, etc.
the thing is, Pd doesn't really differentiate between "main/master patches" and "abstractions".
Anyway, I am just curious about that the rationale is for starting from “untitled”, instead of last saved name? Cause to me it doesn’t make sense at all.
i agree with dan here, that (if it's so annoying to people then ) it's simply a bug and should be fixed.
rfgamsrd IOhannes