[PD-dev] re: branch convergence

Tim Blechmann TimBlechmann at gmx.net
Tue Nov 16 01:43:57 CET 2004


> > On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, guenter geiger wrote:
> > > On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Matju wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > Although I might sound a bit repetitive, the devel branch is not
> > > meant to be published.
> >
> > One question... what's "pd extended" ?
> 
> right, but still, the CVS devel branch was not meant to be published.
> The fact that it was doesn't change the intention it was created for,
> or does it ?

the problem is still ... what if a useful patch will be rejected? as
miller pointed out at the convention, he won't add the simd stuff,
because he feels, he can't maintain it.
but still the simd instructions are very useful, since they provide a
speedup of about 100% ...
the intention is very good, but still, it doesn't bring us further ...

although i don't like the idea, but in this case a "pd extended" might
be some way to publish the devel branch at a point, we consider as
stable ... (at a certain point earlier this year, devel_0_37 has been
more stable than 0.37 in terms of denormal handling)

another way would be the possibility of having maintainers for certain
parts of pd ... so if someone submits a patch, he should be say that he
will maintain that piece of code in future ...

cheers ... tim

-- 
mailto:TimBlechmann at gmx.de    ICQ: 96771783
http://www.mokabar.tk

After one look at this planet any visitor from outer space 
would say "I want to see the manager."
				      William S. Burroughs




More information about the Pd-dev mailing list