[PD-dev] packaging the pddp docs

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Jun 28, 2011, at 4:06 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, 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.


While the pd-gui Tcl code is very different, most of the pd C code was  
unchanged in 0.42 --> 0.43.  So stuff that doesn't really touch the  
Tcl code should be really easy to apply to 0.43.

.hc


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

"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are  
deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from  
scarcity."        -John Gilmore