Am 15. September 2019 19:46:10 MESZ schrieb jakob skouborg <syntaxerror60@hotmail.com mailto:syntaxerror60@hotmail.com>:
What are your thoughts about this?
to be honest, i didnt even notice. usually, if i "save as" any suggested filename is wrong.
One reason this was changed, I believe, is that some people were accidentally overwriting there patches when they forgot to change the original name.
When you don't want to change the name, you'd use "Save" or at least that makes sense to me.
the only suggestion i think "wrongest" would be "Copy of <orgname>.pd"
Hah, most macOS apps now make a "duplicate" named "<orgname> copy".
-------- Dan Wilcox @danomatika http://twitter.com/danomatika danomatika.com http://danomatika.com/ robotcowboy.com http://robotcowboy.com/
On 16 Sep 2019, at 12:53, Dan Wilcox danomatika@gmail.com wrote:
Am 15. September 2019 19:46:10 MESZ schrieb jakob skouborg <syntaxerror60@hotmail.com mailto:syntaxerror60@hotmail.com>:
What are your thoughts about this?
to be honest, i didnt even notice. usually, if i "save as" any suggested filename is wrong.
One reason this was changed, I believe, is that some people were accidentally overwriting there patches when they forgot to change the original name.
But if you attempt to overwrite a file with the same name from the Save as… dialog you get a warning modal “<filename> already exists. Do you want to replace it?” [cancel | replace]. I’m not sure it’s really possible to “accidentally” overwrite a patch with that mechanism in place.
Jamie
Hey :)
to be honest, i didnt even notice. usually, if i "save as" any suggested filename is wrong.
Ah well, that is another perspective, haha ;)
But it is still a lot easier pushing the delete or back arrow one time, to remove the original name, than it is to write a full new name.
One reason this was changed, I believe, is that some people were accidentally overwriting there patches when they forgot to change the original name.
As far as I know, when doing a “save as”, you are always asked if you want to overwrite the original file. So you can just say yes or no to that.
Hah, most macOS apps now make a "duplicate" named "<orgname> copy".
Well, that I could live with, hehe, much better than "untitled" ;)
I often do a lot of versioning when making complex patches, to avoid ruining them. So most of my patches have numbers included.
Like for example "Comb filter 1.0”
And when I do a "save as”, to me it would make sense to start from "Comb filter 1.0” and then simply just change the last number to "Comb filter 1.1”.
On 16 Sep 2019, at 13:53, Dan Wilcox <danomatika@gmail.commailto:danomatika@gmail.com> wrote:
Am 15. September 2019 19:46:10 MESZ schrieb jakob skouborg <syntaxerror60@hotmail.commailto:syntaxerror60@hotmail.com>:
What are your thoughts about this?
to be honest, i didnt even notice. usually, if i "save as" any suggested filename is wrong.
One reason this was changed, I believe, is that some people were accidentally overwriting there patches when they forgot to change the original name.
When you don't want to change the name, you'd use "Save" or at least that makes sense to me.
the only suggestion i think "wrongest" would be "Copy of <orgname>.pd"
Hah, most macOS apps now make a "duplicate" named "<orgname> copy".
-------- Dan Wilcox @danomatikahttp://twitter.com/danomatika danomatika.comhttp://danomatika.com/ robotcowboy.comhttp://robotcowboy.com/
On 16.09.19 18:05, jakob skouborg wrote:
I often do a lot of versioning when making complex patches, to avoid ruining them. So most of my patches have numbers included.
Like for example "Comb filter 1.0”
ah yes, *that* use-case.
if you want to do versioning of patches, you probably should look into a proper version-control-system, like 'git'. seriously. 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.
and while i still don't have much of an opinion about the suggested filename, i think that the suggestion shouldn't contain spaces at all (alternatively you find a simple way to load abstractions with spaces in their name).
gmasdr IOhannes
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.
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. Then anyone can write what they want from there.
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.
and while i still don't have much of an opinion about the suggested filename, i think that the suggestion shouldn't contain spaces at all (alternatively you find a simple way to load abstractions with spaces in their name).
The name heres was just an example.
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.
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.
Cheers!
On 17 Sep 2019, at 10:00, IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
On 16.09.19 18:05, jakob skouborg wrote:
I often do a lot of versioning when making complex patches, to avoid ruining them. So most of my patches have numbers included.
Like for example "Comb filter 1.0”
ah yes, *that* use-case.
if you want to do versioning of patches, you probably should look into a proper version-control-system, like 'git'. seriously. 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.
and while i still don't have much of an opinion about the suggested filename, i think that the suggestion shouldn't contain spaces at all (alternatively you find a simple way to load abstractions with spaces in their name).
gmasdr IOhannes
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
(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
no. but it's one of the consequences of suggesting a scheme like "copy of <orgfile>”.
But no one suggested to use “copy of CombFilter 1.2”, etc….
Next version would be "CombFilter 1.3”. It makes no sense to put this "copy of” etc. in front of the patchname. That is out of context, cause no one would do that in real life.
I simply suggest that instead of starting from “untitled”, one starts from the last saved name, in this case "Combfilter 1.2” or it could be “Combfilter1”. It is really not about the actual name, it is about the starting point when doing a “save as”.
How you and anyone else decide to go on from there, do naming of patches is up to you, I am not judge of other peoples workflow.
Anyway, I think the argument is getting pointless, I made my point and I think most people on the list agreed with me, that last saved name is the right starting point for a “save as”. Whatever people do from there is up to them. Cal it a bug, call it different behaviour, I am no judge of that.
Thanks to everyone and I wish you all a good day.
Best wishes, Jakob
On 19 Sep 2019, at 09:31, IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
(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
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Anyway, I think the argument is getting pointless, I made my point and I think most people on the list agreed with me, that last saved name is the right starting point for a “save as”.
Nobody disagreed with you on this. In fact, iohannes already worked on a fix!
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 um 15:49 Uhr Von: "jakob skouborg" syntaxerror60@hotmail.com An: "IOhannes m zmoelnig" zmoelnig@iem.at Cc: "Pd-dev@lists.iem.at" Pd-dev@lists.iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD-dev] Naming of patch when doing a "save as"
no. but it's one of the consequences of suggesting a scheme like "copy of <orgfile>”.
But no one suggested to use “copy of CombFilter 1.2”, etc….
Next version would be "CombFilter 1.3”. It makes no sense to put this "copy of” etc. in front of the patchname. That is out of context, cause no one would do that in real life.
I simply suggest that instead of starting from “untitled”, one starts from the last saved name, in this case "Combfilter 1.2” or it could be “Combfilter1”. It is really not about the actual name, it is about the starting point when doing a “save as”.
How you and anyone else decide to go on from there, do naming of patches is up to you, I am not judge of other peoples workflow.
Anyway, I think the argument is getting pointless, I made my point and I think most people on the list agreed with me, that last saved name is the right starting point for a “save as”. Whatever people do from there is up to them. Cal it a bug, call it different behaviour, I am no judge of that.
Thanks to everyone and I wish you all a good day.
Best wishes, Jakob
On 19 Sep 2019, at 09:31, IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
(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
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Nobody disagreed with you on this. In fact, iohannes already worked on a fix!
Ok. I apologise. Maybe I misunderstood something in the last mail from IOhannes.
Thanks for taking my suggestion into consideration and thanks to everyone for putting so much effort into Pure Data in general.
Best wishes, Jakob
On 19 Sep 2019, at 15:56, Christof Ressi christof.ressi@gmx.at wrote:
Anyway, I think the argument is getting pointless, I made my point and I think most people on the list agreed with me, that last saved name is the right starting point for a “save as”.
Nobody disagreed with you on this. In fact, iohannes already worked on a fix!
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 um 15:49 Uhr Von: "jakob skouborg" syntaxerror60@hotmail.com An: "IOhannes m zmoelnig" zmoelnig@iem.at Cc: "Pd-dev@lists.iem.at" Pd-dev@lists.iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD-dev] Naming of patch when doing a "save as"
no. but it's one of the consequences of suggesting a scheme like "copy of <orgfile>”.
But no one suggested to use “copy of CombFilter 1.2”, etc….
Next version would be "CombFilter 1.3”. It makes no sense to put this "copy of” etc. in front of the patchname. That is out of context, cause no one would do that in real life.
I simply suggest that instead of starting from “untitled”, one starts from the last saved name, in this case "Combfilter 1.2” or it could be “Combfilter1”. It is really not about the actual name, it is about the starting point when doing a “save as”.
How you and anyone else decide to go on from there, do naming of patches is up to you, I am not judge of other peoples workflow.
Anyway, I think the argument is getting pointless, I made my point and I think most people on the list agreed with me, that last saved name is the right starting point for a “save as”. Whatever people do from there is up to them. Cal it a bug, call it different behaviour, I am no judge of that.
Thanks to everyone and I wish you all a good day.
Best wishes, Jakob
On 19 Sep 2019, at 09:31, IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
(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
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
-
Christof Ressi -
Dan Wilcox -
IOhannes m zmoelnig -
jakob skouborg -
Jamie Bullock