hi thomas, olaf, all
El jue, 26-05-2005 a las 23:02 +0200, Thomas Grill escribió:
Ah, and you said you couldn't figure out how my oggamp~ was working so you made your own one.... another fork? :-)
Oh, true, i remember now - it's not a fork but a new implementation.
from my ignorance: what's the difference between a fork and a new implementation? as long as any changes to any software are not merged back into the parent (or can we say 'upstream' release?) I understand this is a fork, which means a breach opened into two different implementations published(?) under different names(?)
That's because it was contract work and it was faster to write it from scratch than debug the existing code.
sorry to come into this, maybe is not appropiate as I don't know (and don't have to know) the internals on what happened here, but, was the pdogg code so, let's say 'bad', as to not use it? it seems like contract works several times break apart with the concept of collaborativeness...
I think, WInfried asked me if we should put it on SF - it seems that hasn't happened yet. Well - i had difficulties finding an unambiguous name.
sorry but, Thomas, this doesn't sound as a reasonable reason for not publishing back as open-source if there was at least the intention.
sounds more like a crash against Olaf's work which would block the publishing of this new creature.
however, we try to fix issues, not to add more, so it would be helpful to have that code publicly available and somehow decide if it's worth to keep on developing which implementation. or?
greetings rama
all the best, Thomas
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list