[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
repository.
.hc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
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