[PD-dev] Tracker to Mailing List interface

[guenter geiger]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> > projects. The development branch does not become automatically the
> > stable one.
>
> But it does become the next devel branch eventually.

I always thought about that in a different way. I didn't merge
Millers changes into the devel branch but the other way round.
But you surely know better :)

>
> > Having different tags depending on the versions helps to identify
> > the changes.
>
> I still don't get the reason for having a "devel_version" branch. IMO
> the main "devel" branch should be just that, a "devel" branch, which
> should be as current and experimental as possible.

And if the only reason is that we are accostumed to it ?
I would still like to hear a convincing reason why we should switch
to devel, and why it matters.

>
> I don't see why anyone would still need to work on a "devel_0_36"
> branch? 0_36 is obsolete. The same will happen to "devel_0_37", when a
> "devel_0_38" is created. The advantage of having one consistently
> named "devel"-banch is, that I wouldn't need to change my "cvs co"
> options with every new release. Also it would make clearer, that
> "devel" is a different, but somehow parallel evolution of some "MAIN"
> branch.

Currently the naming makes clear that devel_0_XX is a branched version
of a stable release (version XX). This helps me to keep track where we
are, and tells the people who want to try the CVS version were we are.
E.g. now, if you download CVS you know were it stands immediately.

If it would be called "devel" only, people would think it is the newer
and better version of 0.38, which it isn't.

> What I would prefer: Before "devel" is brought up to the next MAIN
> version, there should be a "freeze" of "devel" into "devel_XX". Then
> changes from MAIN would get incorporated and "devel" would still be
> "devel", just an updated one.
>
> Anyway, this is just my opinion, and you shouldn't take this as too
> important, as I don't work directly on Pd-core, and in no way do I
> intend to force my preferences onto anybody else.

Everyones opinion is important here :). But you are right, noone can
force anything. We're all dependent on good will.

> However I do think, that a section for patches in the patch tracker
> should not mention the version number, as this will make the handling
> of patches - which are date-dependent anyway - harder: We would need
> to add a tracker for every devel_X release.

I tried to make that clear in the description at
http://pure-data.sourceforge.net/bug-report.php
The patches are against Millers version, in order to make
it  easier for him to incorporate changes. I am going to rephrase it
to make it clearer.

Guenter

>
> Ciao
> --
>  Frank Barknecht                               _ ______footils.org__
>
> _______________________________________________
> PD-dev mailing list
> PD-dev at iem.at
> http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-dev
>