--- 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 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, 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.
-Jonathan
.hc
Mistrust authority - promote decentralization. - the hacker ethic