On Sep 10, 2008, at 3:26 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
developers together. But it is not working so well now, perhaps because it isn't clearly defined, or because we have different needs now.
do you think so? and why?
One example: There are lots of people who want to use a separate repository. There isn't a clean way to include that code. Plus we are having to discuss how to use the SVN a lot, so there are conflicting ideas of how we should use it.
- For Pd-extended, there needs to be a repository to do code
freezes and bug fixes, branches work pretty well for that.
which is what we have now. the important thing is (imho), to not distinguish between "upstream" versions and "packaging" versions as far as possible. since the Pd-community is so small, i don't think this is a real problem to maintain (unlike e.g. with debian)
That's why I think making a clean and easy to use library format is the #1 priority. Then people maintain their own releases.
- for making a central place to find code, I think we'd be better
off with a 'libraries' page like http://processing.org has.
yes: yet another page to maintain!
If that page was a wiki page, it would open up the maintenance to more people. Plus they wouldn't have to learn/use SVN if they didn't want to. With the current system, you have to be a developer in the pure-data project and you have to use SVN. So it would be a matter of shifting maintenance. Plus this information doesn't change a lot. Here's the page in question:
http://processing.org/reference/libraries/index.html
- for nightly builds, I think that ideally there would be a way to
build libraries separately from Pd-extended, but that's a matter of someone doing the work. Running something like buildbot would be really nice.
yes!
gfmadsr IOhannes
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----
News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity. - Bill Moyers