[PD-dev] DesireData

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at eds.org
Thu Feb 7 22:35:14 CET 2008

On Feb 7, 2008, at 4:20 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>> When looking at a file, say pd/src/s_file.c, then there are be dd- 
>> specific commits in the history, that's what I mean.
> That's been mostly over for a while. Most changes in DesireData in  
> the past year were in merged files with a new name... for example,  
> m_*.c became a new file named kernel.c. Most d_*.c are now  
> builtins_dsp.c, most x_*.c are now builtins.c, etc. Just like  
> desire.c was g_*.c since mid-2005. Some files are still not renamed  
> nor merged, mostly s_*.c.

This is a good example of why dd shouldn't be a branch of pd.  If you  
are introducing new files that are never intended to be included in  
pd/src, then it just gets messy having those extra non-pd files in  
the repository while providing no benefit that I can think of.

>> Many repositories have scripted commit policies that check all  
>> sorts of things before allowing a commit, things like it needs to  
>> compile, it needs not use deprecate libraries, etc. etc.
> Well, neither the PureData nor the DesireData projects have that,  
> and I don't think I've ever heard such scripts being discussed on  
> the pd-dev mailing-list. So, why would it be an issue now?

It has been discussed in the past.  But I was saying more that you  
would be free to implement your own such policies if you used your  
own repository.

I really don't see any real advantage to keeping dd in the pure-data  



As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be  
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and  
this we should do freely and generously.         - Benjamin Franklin

More information about the Pd-dev mailing list