On Dec 23, 2014, at 3:16 AM, pd-list-request@lists.iem.at wrote:From: Ivica Bukvic <ico@vt.edu>To: Dan Wilcox <danomatika@gmail.com>Date: December 23, 2014 at 3:16:12 AM ESTSubject: Re: [PD] [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Extending Vanilla (was Cyclone help patches & issue list)
On Dec 23, 2014 1:53 AM, "Dan Wilcox" <danomatika@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You know guys, all I’m saying is perhaps there’s a way to move forward with the spirit of Pd-extended with the practicality of making it easy to use the extended externals with vanilla. In no way was I trying to say what you’re doing or not doing with pd-l2ork is wrong.
>
> This line "I assume l2ork doesn’t rely on one person testing and building across multiple platforms?” is only asking if you’ve experienced what a pain it is to handle that. It takes work and it’s *really* nice not to have to rely on one or two people to manually check things. I wrote that in comradeship assuming you agree that it’s a pain to do.
>
> I appreciate the work y’all are doing, but not everyone wants to use pd-l2ork and you yourselves have said you have no interest in trying to fill the role of Pd-extended.I think you may have misunderstood me (or I may have misspoke, honestly can't remember). Pd-l2ork is and has since its inception replaced extended in my own work. Out of respect to the work of Hans and many others have done with extended, as well as pd-l2ork's arguably lesser concern with legacy stuff I never wanted to claim it will do the same for you and others (even though as of right now I can think of a couple, mainly cosmetic reasons why it wouldn't).
Best,
Ico