On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 10:06 -0700, "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Thu, 7/7/11, Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at wrote:
From: Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at Subject: Re: [PD] Pd-extended 0.43 updates: lots of new editing features To: "Ivica Ico Bukvic" ico@vt.edu Cc: pd-list@iem.at Date: Thursday, July 7, 2011, 5:33 PM
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:39 +0200, "Ivica Ico Bukvic" ico@vt.edu wrote:
I ended up refactoring the magic glass and
highlighting code quite a
bit, I think there might be something worth
checking out. As for
other bug fixes, it would be great to have them
in the patch tracker
so we can sort them out. It would take me a
massive amount of time to
figure out what code changes are for what in
pdl2ork since there isn't
any version control (that I could find at least)
and it seems to be a
mix of 0.42 and 0.43 versions.
It's based off of 0.42.6 extended tree. As for
submitting patches, I've
been doing this in the past. Alas, a good number of
them never got any
attention which is not very encouraging.
If you look at the patch tracker, and filter on Closed ones, you'll see which ones get accepted. Most do. It takes a lot of time to review patches, so if they don't cleanly apply and build, then I'm not really likely to pursue it much further. I've tried figuring out patches like that in the past, and it just takes too much time to try to figure out what's wrong, etc. and it doesn't speak well of the patch if it doesn't past the first hurdle.
.hc
bugfix 3127123 Closed
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3127123&group_id=557... Accepted with comments. Am I missing something?
bugfix 3110267 Open, no comments, no assignees patch 3077431 Open, comments, I emailed the cyclone author to ask if he's ok with Ico's improvements...
No word from the upstream author of cyclone, he's not active anymore. The focus of the cyclone library is to be clones of Max/MSP objects. I'm not in a place to test that stuff, so I'm not likely to handle patches for cyclone. I don't really have a criteria to judge if its correct, unless its a really simple bugfix.
bugfix 3109768 Open, and I added a new comment (Note: the comment I added is fixed in Pd-l2ork)
donno, haven't reviewed
bugfix 3108513 Open, no comments
patch out of date, applies to 0.42 but not 0.43
- bugfix 3106837 Open, comments
commented: Looks worth including, but with GOP bugs, I'm currently waiting to see what Miller is going to do with GOP restructuring before tackling this stuff. I still don't really have a grasp of the GOP code, so I don't know what the repercussions of GOP-related patches are. From my experience, one little simple fix causes some weird behavior elsewhere.
bugfix 3106799 Open, comments, bug still exists (Note: fixed in Pd-l2ork) bugfix 3102512 Open, comments patch 1670440 Closed, accepted
If any of these didn't apply cleanly and didn't build, there's no comment indicating so.
I haven't necessarily had time to review everything, nagging and poking me is perfectly appropriate if you think I should review something. And anything assigned to Miller and reviewed positively by IOhannes I'm going to defer any action on until Miller responds.
.hc
-Jonathan
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list