[PD-dev] Re: PD-cvs Digest, Vol 21, Issue 30

[Mathieu Bouchard]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Georg Holzmann wrote:

> No, but you said it yourself: you joined (after impure data) the 
> pd_devel branch so that you can also benefit from those improvements ...

Yes, but that was conditional to having such improvements. I think that 
I was somewhat mistaken when I first joined devel_0_39, I thought that 
it was going to be somewhat more dynamic than that. Turns out that:

   1. I had the delusion that there were more developers working on
      devel_0_39, but I hadn't counted. Turned out that it wasn't true.

   2. Tim is basically on the way out: keeps using pd for
      backwards-compatibility reasons.

   3. Thomas has a hidden branch because devel_0_39 is too dangerous
      because I could be committing files in it.

   4. At this point (these months...), the only other regular contributors
      to devel_0_39 are Chun Lee and myself.

> Now there is already the main and devel/desire_data branch and I think 
> such a marginal problem as you have (the beautification ...) should not 
> be the reason for one more branch ...

Well, you shouldn't confuse the actual with problem, with something that 
is just a trigger (a catalyser) for change. Thomas's problem is just an 
occasion for taking the time for a reality check about the issue, and 
summarise all the issues that have accumulated during the 16 months of 
having devel_0_39 and desiredata two-in-one.

I don't see the branching as being a big change, nor as a surprise, nor as 
being weird or out-of-place or bad manners.

That said, I don't want to switch to another repository as of now; I don't 
see its advantages as being greater than its inconvenients.

  _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju
| Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada