[PD] Re: [PD-dev] pdogg hacks

[rama]

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 at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
--