Hi Everyone,
This mail is the last I will write about cyclone in the foreseeable future. There are serious plans to save Pure Data and cyclone by adding numerous objects. As I don't seem to be able to communicate my vision on cyclone maintenance and because my time and energy is limited, I decided to stop working on it. I don't want to, but there is no benefit for the community in having two diverging versions of cyclone.
There are other useful ex-pd-extended libraries that can use some maintenance. If you have favorite candidates, let me know.
Greetings,
Fred Jan
2016-02-21 16:35 GMT-03:00 Fred Jan Kraan fjkraan@xs4all.nl:
I decided to stop working on it.
well, I have to say I'm actually deeply sorry for that cause I think you've been doing a great job working on fixes and all
There is no benefit for the community in having two diverging versions of cyclone.
Agreed, but I thought we could all work in just one, too bad if that can't happen.
Anyway, this year I had plans to start coding and building externals. A close friend of mine here in Brazil - who's active in the Pd community as a developer - was willing to help me/teach me. I just talked to him (Flávio Schiavoni - he's on this list but also copied here on this message) and he's also available to help us in the maintenance of cyclone regarding the more technical issues like building the library and keeping it for download via deken.
I can continue to be involved doing things like
according to newer versions of Max (5+)
As my coding skills improve, I can also work on bug fixes and implementing new objects, but for now I need help from Schiavoni, who's onboard with me on this.
I know there are others willing to contribute coding new objects and all, of course anyone who's willing to help is welcome.
Now, leaving aside issues of future maintenance, and regarding the very purpose and *Future of* the *Cyclone* project, I don't believe anything should differ from the original project description, which says its a *set of objects cloned from Max/MSP* (..) *bringing some level of compatibility between Max/MSP and Pd environments *(..) *mainly for people using both Max and Pd*
There's nothing in the original project description about the following goals of future development, but maybe we could discuss it and make it explicit.
A)- Ideally, objects should be kept updated to the functionalities existent in the most to date Max/MSP versions B)- Ideally, we should have all possible objects cloned
We know in practice that's a crazy amount of work, so collaborators are free to work on what they consider more relevant and important.
Cheers
There's nothing in the original project description about the following goals of future development, but maybe we could discuss it and make it explicit.
A)- Ideally, objects should be kept updated to the functionalities existent in the most to date Max/MSP versions B)- Ideally, we should have all possible objects cloned
I didn't mention anything about keeping it backwards compatible and compatible to Max/MSP because I thought it was implied.
Anyway, we can discuss as a community if this is what the majority thinks should be an ideal goal of development.
cheers
On 02/21/2016 08:35 PM, Fred Jan Kraan wrote:
This mail is the last I will write about cyclone in the foreseeable future.
this is about the worst possible outcome of the entire discussion.
There are serious plans to save Pure Data and cyclone by adding numerous objects.
what i don't understand is: what keeps people from creating a "typhoon" library that adds the additional objects?
there is nothing stating that all those objects need to be in the one-and-only library named "cyclone". having two non-identical libraries named "cyclone" (or "zexy") is obviously nuts; but having two libraries with similar tasks and similar (but distinguishable) names could be a win for everybody.
it's not like anybody writing compat objects needed to use the (imho overly complicated for most objects) infrastructure part of cyclone.
gmfsare IOhannes
PS: and what is that "hurricane" library for?
2016-02-21 18:18 GMT-03:00 IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at:
this is about the worst possible outcome of the entire discussion.
Agreed
There's nothing stating that all those objects need to be in the
one-and-only library named "cyclone".
Yep, but there's some sense it'd be a good spot and nothing says they shouldn't be in it too...
having two libraries with similar tasks and similar (but distinguishable) names could be a win for everybody.
Maybe more like virtually the *same* tasks. the new could include the old with updates (instead of just some separated objects) to keep related objects together (here's pong, but if you want pong~ from max 4.6 get that other library). Or... here's pong~ updated to Max 7, but there's and old library with pong~ max 4.6. The more you look at it, it's just weird.
I hoped for a joint venture on the same project. I honestly think a fork like that seemed like a last resource deal, a very drastic measure. "Hey, this is a different name, but it's the same as that other one with a little extra updates". I also agree with the reasoning of Ivica, who said.
2016-02-20 14:04 GMT-02:00 Ivica Ico Bukvic ico@vt.edu:
The confusion one will have to deal with by creating cyclone/prepend vs. <some-other-lib>/pong is pointless at best.
Well, one way or another, this seems to be the outcome and I'm also deeply sorry for it too.
But hey, there are others willing to help on this project, we could talk about the future instead of what could've been.
cheers
Howdy, looking ahead, here's the repository I'm starting to work with Flavio https://github.com/porres/pd-cyclone. As maintainers for cyclone, we're to provide builds for various platforms from this repo. Collaborators could fork it to make changes and then make pull requests for merging into ours, when we'd test and evaluate if they're ok by the following criteria: *-* Change was a successful bug fix. *-* Change was: a) new feature additions to existing objects or b) new objects; where Max/MSP compatibility is respected.
We have plans to try to upload a new testing version to see how it goes in a week or so. It is to include some new objects that are being finished with the help of others (*hopefully 11 of them ([trunc~] / [atodb] / [dbtoa] / [atodb~] / [dbtoa~] / [pong] / [round~] / [round] / [scale] / [scale~] / [loadmess]*) and also correct some minor bugs, like the one with triangle~ that I already fixed today, and also existing issues with [pong~] plus an update to current Max version.
The repo is a fork from the last update in previous maintenance (cyclone version 0.2beta1), which was on its own a fork from cyclone's repo for version 0.1-Alpha56 (available in Pd Extended). I completely changed the README.md from the previous fork. I reintroduced the original project description from Krzysztof Czaja that had been discarded and included notes on "Previous & Current state / Goals & Further Development", sharing information/credit about past developments and further development proposals.
cheers
2016-02-21 19:51 GMT-03:00 Alexandre Torres Porres porres@gmail.com:
2016-02-21 18:18 GMT-03:00 IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at:
this is about the worst possible outcome of the entire discussion.
Agreed
There's nothing stating that all those objects need to be in the
one-and-only library named "cyclone".
Yep, but there's some sense it'd be a good spot and nothing says they shouldn't be in it too...
having two libraries with similar tasks and similar (but distinguishable) names could be a win for everybody.
Maybe more like virtually the *same* tasks. the new could include the old with updates (instead of just some separated objects) to keep related objects together (here's pong, but if you want pong~ from max 4.6 get that other library). Or... here's pong~ updated to Max 7, but there's and old library with pong~ max 4.6. The more you look at it, it's just weird.
I hoped for a joint venture on the same project. I honestly think a fork like that seemed like a last resource deal, a very drastic measure. "Hey, this is a different name, but it's the same as that other one with a little extra updates". I also agree with the reasoning of Ivica, who said.
2016-02-20 14:04 GMT-02:00 Ivica Ico Bukvic ico@vt.edu:
The confusion one will have to deal with by creating cyclone/prepend vs. <some-other-lib>/pong is pointless at best.
Well, one way or another, this seems to be the outcome and I'm also deeply sorry for it too.
But hey, there are others willing to help on this project, we could talk about the future instead of what could've been.
cheers
On 02/21/2016 10:18 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
On 02/21/2016 08:35 PM, Fred Jan Kraan wrote:
This mail is the last I will write about cyclone in the foreseeable future.
this is about the worst possible outcome of the entire discussion.
There are serious plans to save Pure Data and cyclone by adding numerous objects.
what i don't understand is: what keeps people from creating a "typhoon" library that adds the additional objects?
[...]
PS: and what is that "hurricane" library for?
after thinking some more about this, i think a sensible way to move forward is for *both* forks of cyclone to change their names.
cyclone is krzysztof's library. krzysztof is missing in action. he has neither officially abandoned the library nor has he (to my knowledge) authorized anybody to continue on his behalf.
i agree with chris that this is open source, and that forking is one of the strengths of open source. this doesn't mean though, that we should end up with 3 different versions of the same software that are indistinguishable from outside though different inside. in german we call this thing a "mogelpackung" (a euphemism for fraud).
it doesn't really matter if everybody is only working with their best intentions in mind. what does matter is, that the end-user is being mislead.
i therefore ask both fred and alexandre to change the name of their library, so that they cannot be confused with both the original cyclone library and with each other: neither of the forks is an (or /the/) "official" fork. for what it is worth, git makes it easy to incorporate changes between forks (using pull requests, cherry picking,...) even if the names are different!
keep both names similar to cyclone if you want to, so that it is possible to see their relation.
i still think that "hurricane", "tornado", "typhoon" and "windhoos" are good candidates.
mgrdsa IOhannes
PS: of course i am in no position to tell you what to do, but i do think this is a good opportunity to find a "best practice" forking model in the Pd world.
Alexandre suggested "recyclone," which I kind of like. "Cyclone" gets its name as a portmanteau of "cycling" and "clone," and it happens to be an english word. I rather like "typhoon," but "recyclone" makes it clear that it's a continuation of the original cyclone, while adding "recycle" to the portmanteau.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:32 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
On 02/21/2016 10:18 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
On 02/21/2016 08:35 PM, Fred Jan Kraan wrote:
This mail is the last I will write about cyclone in the foreseeable future.
this is about the worst possible outcome of the entire discussion.
There are serious plans to save Pure Data and cyclone by adding numerous objects.
what i don't understand is: what keeps people from creating a "typhoon" library that adds the additional objects?
[...]
PS: and what is that "hurricane" library for?
after thinking some more about this, i think a sensible way to move forward is for *both* forks of cyclone to change their names.
cyclone is krzysztof's library. krzysztof is missing in action. he has neither officially abandoned the library nor has he (to my knowledge) authorized anybody to continue on his behalf.
i agree with chris that this is open source, and that forking is one of the strengths of open source. this doesn't mean though, that we should end up with 3 different versions of the same software that are indistinguishable from outside though different inside. in german we call this thing a "mogelpackung" (a euphemism for fraud).
it doesn't really matter if everybody is only working with their best intentions in mind. what does matter is, that the end-user is being mislead.
i therefore ask both fred and alexandre to change the name of their library, so that they cannot be confused with both the original cyclone library and with each other: neither of the forks is an (or /the/) "official" fork. for what it is worth, git makes it easy to incorporate changes between forks (using pull requests, cherry picking,...) even if the names are different!
keep both names similar to cyclone if you want to, so that it is possible to see their relation.
i still think that "hurricane", "tornado", "typhoon" and "windhoos" are good candidates.
mgrdsa IOhannes
PS: of course i am in no position to tell you what to do, but i do think this is a good opportunity to find a "best practice" forking model in the Pd world.
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
bicycle…bicyclone
On 23 Feb 2016, at 21:46, Matt Barber brbrofsvl@gmail.com wrote:
Alexandre suggested "recyclone," which I kind of like. "Cyclone" gets its name as a portmanteau of "cycling" and "clone," and it happens to be an english word. I rather like "typhoon," but "recyclone" makes it clear that it's a continuation of the original cyclone, while adding "recycle" to the portmanteau.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:32 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig@iem.at mailto:zmoelnig@iem.at> wrote: On 02/21/2016 10:18 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
On 02/21/2016 08:35 PM, Fred Jan Kraan wrote:
This mail is the last I will write about cyclone in the foreseeable future.
this is about the worst possible outcome of the entire discussion.
There are serious plans to save Pure Data and cyclone by adding numerous objects.
what i don't understand is: what keeps people from creating a "typhoon" library that adds the additional objects?
[...]
PS: and what is that "hurricane" library for?
after thinking some more about this, i think a sensible way to move forward is for *both* forks of cyclone to change their names.
cyclone is krzysztof's library. krzysztof is missing in action. he has neither officially abandoned the library nor has he (to my knowledge) authorized anybody to continue on his behalf.
i agree with chris that this is open source, and that forking is one of the strengths of open source. this doesn't mean though, that we should end up with 3 different versions of the same software that are indistinguishable from outside though different inside. in german we call this thing a "mogelpackung" (a euphemism for fraud).
it doesn't really matter if everybody is only working with their best intentions in mind. what does matter is, that the end-user is being mislead.
i therefore ask both fred and alexandre to change the name of their library, so that they cannot be confused with both the original cyclone library and with each other: neither of the forks is an (or /the/) "official" fork. for what it is worth, git makes it easy to incorporate changes between forks (using pull requests, cherry picking,...) even if the names are different!
keep both names similar to cyclone if you want to, so that it is possible to see their relation.
i still think that "hurricane", "tornado", "typhoon" and "windhoos" are good candidates.
mgrdsa IOhannes
PS: of course i am in no position to tell you what to do, but i do think this is a good opportunity to find a "best practice" forking model in the Pd world.
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Hi Fred Jan,
On 22/02/16 03:35, Fred Jan Kraan wrote:
This mail is the last I will write about cyclone in the foreseeable future. There are serious plans to save Pure Data and cyclone by adding numerous objects. As I don't seem to be able to communicate my vision on cyclone maintenance and because my time and energy is limited, I decided to stop working on it.
I can understand your motivations here. That makes sense and I have made similar decisions in the past on projects.
I don't want to, but there is no benefit for the community in having two diverging versions of cyclone.
If you don't want to stop maintaining cyclone as you say, then you should not stop.
"Diverging versions" is what makes FLOSS exciting and useful and evolutionarily fit.
If it was me I would include in the README of your repository a link to the fork with a rationale for why a user might want to run the other version, and then continue to develop your version with your own particular vision. You might find some significant subset of cyclone users will continue to enjoy your fork and find it useful.
For example, here is text from the PDDroidParty README:
"Also check out PdDroidPublisher which is a fork of this codebase with a focus on creating distributable music apps," and there is a link to PdDroidPublisher that users can follow to download it and try it out.
I hope that is of benefit to you and to the common good.
Cheers,
Chris.
On 22/02/16 15:10, Chris McCormick wrote:
For example, here is text from the PDDroidParty README:
"Also check out PdDroidPublisher which is a fork of this codebase with a focus on creating distributable music apps," and there is a link to PdDroidPublisher that users can follow to download it and try it out.
Just realised the irony of using this example as PdDroidParty is looking for a new maintainer. :)
Cheers,
Chris.