[PD-dev] Protecting Pd-MAIN [was: Re: [PD] Problem in os x 10.5.1?]

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

By "it helps me more to have patches", do you mean something  
different than how we are doing it now?  Or do you mean keep on  
submitting patches to the tracker?

.hc

On Feb 11, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:

> In the CVS days, my process was to test my latest source tree on the
> three major platforms, then put the sources both on my website and in
> the repository.  (for minor changes that didn't warrant a "test  
> release"
> number I'd just upload to CVS but not before verifying  
> everything.)  So
> both the repository and my site are essentially copies of what I had
> last time everything worked.
>
> I think that, in this model, it helps me more to have patches I
> can apply locally than entire branches upstairs in CVS.
>
> This does mean I should be as quick as I can to adopt urgent  
> patches such
> as Casals's.  I'm not always able to test and deal with patches  
> immediately,
> and am sometimes out of commission for weeks (for instance, while  
> trying to
> deal with font sizes I was out of sync with the uploaded code).   
> This time
> around I hope to get this patch tested and uploaded within a couple  
> of days,
> depending on how long it takes me to figure out how to manage my  
> internal
> version headaches (already worknig on 0.42...)
>
> cheers
> Miller
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:29:19AM +0000, David Plans Casal wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> On 10 Feb 2008, at 22:58, Frank Barknecht wrote:
>>
>>>> And if so, what's the appropriate branch? branches/pd? branches /
>>>> pd /
>>>> pd-0.40-3?
>>>
>>> I'd say, that as we now have no ACL anymore, care should be taken  
>>> when
>>> working on the Pd sources itself. So far, Miller had his own section
>>> that was read-only for others. I think, as the mechanism to protect
>>> Miller's part is gone now, we need a policy instead how to achieve a
>>> similar kind of protection, and we probably need it soon. My
>>> suggestion would be to agree that only Miller commits to the "trunk"
>>> of "pd" and to create some similarily protected area for Miller's
>>> release branches.
>>
>> I don't have a problem with the pumpkin holder approach at all (which
>> is why I didn't just commit this to trunk)
>>
>> I would like to see tiny (but important) patches go to latest
>> unprotected branch, wherefrom miller can just cherry pick changes  
>> from
>> branches to trunk, so:
>>
>> [someDeveloper]:
>>
>> svn checkout branches/buggyBranch
>> [edits s_inter.c]
>> svn commit -m "I fixed bug 37654"
>> revision 20
>>
>> [miller]:
>>
>> svn diff -rHEAD s_inter.c
>> [oooh yummy change]
>> svn merge -r 20:HEAD svn://puredata/branches/buggyBranch
>> [slurp]
>>
>> In the meantime, what branch do people think bugfixes like this one
>> should go into?
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PD-dev mailing list
>> PD-dev at iem.at
>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> PD-dev mailing list
> PD-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev



------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
----

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and  
during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man  
for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers.      - General  
Smedley Butler