[PD-dev] packaging the pddp docs

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Jun 28, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:

>
>
> --- On Tue, 6/28/11, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at> wrote:
>
>> From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at>
>> Subject: Re: [PD-dev] packaging the pddp docs
>> To: "Jonathan Wilkes" <jancsika at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: pd-dev at iem.at
>> Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2011, 7:20 PM
>>
>> On Jun 28, 2011, at 1:10 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm already kind of doing that with pd-l2ork.
>>>> I've revised Miller's
>>>>> control/audio/ds tutorials.  Pd-l2ork has
>> fixed
>>>> the crasher bug when
>>>>> a patch closes itself, so I've got a
>> navigation
>>>> toolbar in those
>>>>> tutorials
>>>>> that is currently incompatible with
>>>> pd-extended/vanilla.
>>>>
>>>> I had no idea.  Ico seems to work on his
>> own.  It
>>>> would be great to
>>>> have those bug fixes submitted to the patch
>> tracker.
>>>> The patch
>>>> tracker is what Miller, IOhannes, Martin Peach, me
>> and
>>>> others use for
>>>> keeping track of patches that are meant to go
>> into
>>>> pure-data core.
>>>
>>> He's also working off 0.42 currently, so submitting to
>> the
>>> tracker would be pointless.  I think someone was
>> working
>>> to port the changes forward to 0.43, but Ico is
>> currently
>>> on vacation and I'm not sure where they are in the
>> process.
>>
>> I merged in a couple things from l2ork, like Joe Sarlo's
>> Magic Glass and inlet/outlet highlighting.  More
>> patches would be great to have.
>
> As far as I understand there are a lot of changes in Pd-l2ork
> to core Pd, and if you accepted them into Pd-extended it would
> introduce more discrepancies between vanilla and extended.  If
> that's a possibility you'd entertain to get the some of the
> functionality that pd-l2ork adds, then I can help with this
> process.


Bug fixes should definitely be included, other patches are on a case  
by case basis.  Accepting patches is a time consuming process,  
especially if the patch submitted are not super clean or has not been  
thoroughly tested.  That's the main reason for patches to be rejected  
or ignored.

I've gone thru a lot of patches from l2ork before, and found that they  
were not well tested, sometimes didn't even apply cleanly, and  
sometimes introduced new bugs.  It seems that Ico didn't want to work  
thru the patch process, and instead is working on a fork.  That's a  
good way to develop solid, well tested patches so it could be that a  
lot of the l2ork stuff is ready to be resubmitted.

.hc

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

Mistrust authority - promote decentralization.  - the hacker ethic