By "it helps me more to have patches", do you mean something different than how we are doing it now? Or do you mean keep on submitting patches to the tracker?
.hc
On Feb 11, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
In the CVS days, my process was to test my latest source tree on the three major platforms, then put the sources both on my website and in the repository. (for minor changes that didn't warrant a "test release" number I'd just upload to CVS but not before verifying everything.) So both the repository and my site are essentially copies of what I had last time everything worked.
I think that, in this model, it helps me more to have patches I can apply locally than entire branches upstairs in CVS.
This does mean I should be as quick as I can to adopt urgent patches such as Casals's. I'm not always able to test and deal with patches immediately, and am sometimes out of commission for weeks (for instance, while trying to deal with font sizes I was out of sync with the uploaded code). This time around I hope to get this patch tested and uploaded within a couple of days, depending on how long it takes me to figure out how to manage my internal version headaches (already worknig on 0.42...)
cheers Miller
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:29:19AM +0000, David Plans Casal wrote:
Hi
On 10 Feb 2008, at 22:58, Frank Barknecht wrote:
And if so, what's the appropriate branch? branches/pd? branches / pd / pd-0.40-3?
I'd say, that as we now have no ACL anymore, care should be taken when working on the Pd sources itself. So far, Miller had his own section that was read-only for others. I think, as the mechanism to protect Miller's part is gone now, we need a policy instead how to achieve a similar kind of protection, and we probably need it soon. My suggestion would be to agree that only Miller commits to the "trunk" of "pd" and to create some similarily protected area for Miller's release branches.
I don't have a problem with the pumpkin holder approach at all (which is why I didn't just commit this to trunk)
I would like to see tiny (but important) patches go to latest unprotected branch, wherefrom miller can just cherry pick changes from branches to trunk, so:
[someDeveloper]:
svn checkout branches/buggyBranch [edits s_inter.c] svn commit -m "I fixed bug 37654" revision 20
[miller]:
svn diff -rHEAD s_inter.c [oooh yummy change] svn merge -r 20:HEAD svn://puredata/branches/buggyBranch [slurp]
In the meantime, what branch do people think bugfixes like this one should go into?
David
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. - General Smedley Butler