[PD-dev] Naming of patch when doing a "save as"

jakob skouborg syntaxerror60 at hotmail.com
Thu Sep 19 16:00:26 CEST 2019


> Nobody disagreed with you on this. In fact, iohannes already worked on a fix!


Ok. I apologise. Maybe I misunderstood something in the last mail from IOhannes.

Thanks for taking my suggestion into consideration and thanks to everyone for putting so much effort into Pure Data in general.

Best wishes, Jakob



> On 19 Sep 2019, at 15:56, Christof Ressi <christof.ressi at gmx.at> wrote:
> 
>> Anyway, I think the argument is getting pointless, I made my point and I think most people on the 
>> list agreed with me, that last saved name is the right starting point for a “save as”. 
> 
> Nobody disagreed with you on this. In fact, iohannes already worked on a fix!
> 
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 um 15:49 Uhr
>> Von: "jakob skouborg" <syntaxerror60 at hotmail.com>
>> An: "IOhannes m zmoelnig" <zmoelnig at iem.at>
>> Cc: "Pd-dev at lists.iem.at" <Pd-dev at lists.iem.at>
>> Betreff: Re: [PD-dev] Naming of patch when doing a "save as"
>> 
>> 
>>> no.
>>> but it's one of the consequences of suggesting a scheme like "copy of
>>> <orgfile>”.
>> 
>> But no one suggested to use “copy of CombFilter 1.2”, etc…. 
>> 
>> Next version would be "CombFilter 1.3”. It makes no sense to put this "copy of” etc. in front of the patchname.
>> That is out of context, cause no one would do that in real life.
>> 
>> I simply suggest that instead of starting from “untitled”, one starts from the last saved name, in this case
>> "Combfilter 1.2” or it could be “Combfilter1”. It is really not about the actual name, it is about the starting
>> point when doing a “save as”. 
>> 
>> How you and anyone else decide to go on from there, do naming of patches is up to you, I am not judge
>> of other peoples workflow.
>> 
>> Anyway, I think the argument is getting pointless, I made my point and I think most people on the 
>> list agreed with me, that last saved name is the right starting point for a “save as”. Whatever
>> people do from there is up to them. Cal it a bug, call it different behaviour, I am no judge of that.
>> 
>> Thanks to everyone and I wish you all a good day.
>> 
>> Best wishes, Jakob
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 19 Sep 2019, at 09:31, IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig at iem.at> wrote:
>>> 
>>> (one of the problems with this thread is, that i cannot refrain from
>>> answering...)
>>> 
>>> On 18.09.19 19:26, jakob skouborg wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> the days of "Copy of Copy of Kopie von Comb filter 1.2 (17.12.1997)
>>>>> final copy.pd" ought to be gone for good.
>>>> 
>>>> That is not what what I am saying or expecting. 
>>> 
>>> no.
>>> but it's one of the consequences of suggesting a scheme like "copy of
>>> <orgfile>".
>>> all *i* am saying is that i don't want such a scheme.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> It is really very simple, just start from the name of last time the patch was saved, 
>>>> like basically any other app in the world does today.
>>> 
>>> did you notice that i never said anything against *that*?
>>> actually, i think it's a pretty sane default (and so far everybody seems
>>> to agree).
>>> 
>>>>> if you want to do versioning of patches, you probably should look into a
>>>>> proper version-control-system, like 'git'.
>>>>> seriously.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I think that is overcomplicating the "save as" function a little bit. 
>>> 
>>> i never said that this should go into the "save as" functionality.
>>> what i said is that if you want to manage multiple versions of a patch,
>>> you shouldn't use filenames at all, but look instead look into a system
>>> that was designed to manage multiple versions of files.
>>> 
>>>>> i think that the suggestion shouldn't contain spaces at all
>>> [...]> The name heres was just an example.
>>> 
>>> <wink>
>>> so how should we fix the current behaviour if the/a suggested solution
>>> is "just an example" and bogus?
>>> </wink>
>>> 
>>>> Of course I call abstractions something else, without spaces. 
>>>> 
>>>> I am talking about main/master patches. All though you can still call them “Patchname1”, etc.
>>> 
>>> the thing is, Pd doesn't really differentiate between "main/master
>>> patches" and "abstractions".
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Anyway, I am just curious about that the rationale is for starting from “untitled”, 
>>>> instead of last saved name? Cause to me it doesn’t make sense at all.
>>> 
>>> i agree with dan here, that (if it's so annoying to people then ) it's
>>> simply a bug and should be fixed.
>>> 
>>> rfgamsrd
>>> IOhannes
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pd-dev mailing list
>>> Pd-dev at lists.iem.at
>>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pd-dev mailing list
>> Pd-dev at lists.iem.at
>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
>> 



More information about the Pd-dev mailing list