[PD-dev] packaging the pddp docs

[Jonathan Wilkes]

--- 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, 8:52 PM
> 
> 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.

Well, like I said, it's still based off 0.42.  When it gets ported 
to 0.43, maybe we can figure out a way to do this.

-Jonathan

> 
> .hc
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Mistrust authority - promote decentralization.  - the
> hacker ethic
> 
> 
>