hans at eds.org
Wed May 11 20:31:05 CEST 2005
Renaming to community sounds good. But if you are going to fork (i.e.
make structural changes, IMPd, etc.) then it seems that we should have
a distinct fork branch, and a devel branch. devel would be for adding
changes to miller's version and the community/fork branch would be
Or it'd probably make the most sense to keep devel as a branch, then
make the "community" fork its own directory. If the idea is to make
major, incompatible changes then keeping it a branch doesn't seem to
make a lot of sense to me.
On May 10, 2005, at 10:05 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> On Sun, 8 May 2005, Thomas Grill wrote:
>> In my opinion Miller's vanilla PD is more like a development version
>> in the way that it introduces more fundamental changes to the
>> structure, while the devel branch normally just adds convience
> This is going to change. The devel branch will introduce more
> fundamental changes to the structure. The reason why no-one has really
> been daring to is because it's too much trouble to repatch every devel
> version of PureData this way:
> miller-0.37 ---fork---> devel-0.37
> | / |
> | / |
> | / merge
> evolve .--obliviate--' if you
> | / care
> | / |
> v v v
> miller-0.38 ---fork---> devel-0.38
> That is, currently, a new devel version is the last released miller
> version plus part of the diff between devel 0.37 and miller 0.37. The
> diagonal arrow is for the most part a non-arrow; to be fair, it's a
> "merge" arrow but with a small percentage, whereas devel 0.38 has all
> the new features of miller 0.38. Basically the same thing happened
> between 0.36 and 0.37 (but I wasn't really in the team yet, so correct
> me if I'm wrong).
> What I would see for the future is this:
> miller-0.38 ----fork-----> community (formerly devel-0.38)
> | / |
> | / |----fork---> community stable R1
> | whatever / |
> evolve .-- miller ---' evolve
> | / wants to do |
> | / |----fork---> community stable R2
> v v merge v
> miller-0.39 --- if you ---> community
> | care |
> etc etc
> Note that there are no version numbers for devel anymore. Here I
> renamed it to "community". This system supports major changes in the
> community branch, and no-longer supports the primacy of the miller
> branch. The community branch would have its own stable releases
> independent from the miller branch; they would be numbered differently
> so that there would be no confusion _and_ that the miller-0.xx.0
> releases *don't* drive version changes of the releases of the
> community branch.
>> but up to now there was no indication that important features like
>> SIMD code, low latency callbacks and array update time will make it
>> into Miller's PD soon.
> There is still no such indication for SIMD, and it will get worse when
> ImpureData enters the picture, which is Real Soon Now (tm).
>>> I also think that, to promote evolution of the PureData source code
>>> base, when Miller's 0.39 gets published, diffs between Miller's 0.38
>>> and 0.39 should be merged to devel_0_38, and not the other way
>>> around. This is especially important if there is more work being
>>> done on the non-Miller side than on the Miller side.
>> To my knowledge this has always been the case, no?
> Does the long explanation above answer your question?
> ,-o---------o---------o---------o-. ,---. irc.freenode.net #dataflow |
> | The Diagram is the Program (TM) | |
> `-o--------------o--------------o-' | | Mathieu Bouchard (Montréal
> QC) |
> | téléphone: +1.514.383.3801 `---' `-o-- http://artengine.ca/matju
> PD-dev mailing list
> PD-dev at iem.at
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are
deliberately throwing it
away to benefit those who profit from scarcity."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2353 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Pd-dev