[PD] call for testers for L2Ork iteration of pd-extended (based on 0.42.x branch)

[Jonathan Wilkes]

--- On Mon, 12/6/10, ico at vt.edu <ico at vt.edu> wrote:

> From: ico at vt.edu <ico at vt.edu>
> Subject: Re: [PD] call for testers for L2Ork iteration of pd-extended (based on 0.42.x branch)
> To: "Jonathan Wilkes" <jancsika at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Hans-Christoph Steiner" <hans at at.or.at>, "'PD List'" <pd-list at iem.at>
> Date: Monday, December 6, 2010, 1:16 AM
> > And where does merging your
> changes in with pd-extended 0.43 fit
> > into all this?
> 
> Not sure. I've submitted at least half-dozen patches into
> the sourceforge
> already and many more via mailing list and only a fraction
> of them have been
> looked at, and even less merged. Granted, some of them are
> somewhat
> controversial (e.g. revamping the scrolling algorithm), yet
> with such a low
> response rate one certainly feels discouraged in
> contributing further,

The argument as I understand it is that all your patches apply to 
0.42-5.  So pick the simplest feature or bugfix you've implemented 
and submit it as a patch for 0.43.  If you get feedback and/or it 
gets merged, end of discouragement.  If you don't, then the 
development process is broken and needs fixing.

If I knew how I'd do it myself.

-Jonathan

> particularly considering just how time-consuming
> fragmenting improvements into
> sub-patches can be. OTOH, I do understand just how hard it
> can be for one
> to maintain code when there are a bunch of patches
> trickling in at all
> times--it's a full-time job in and of itself, particularly
> in respect to
> regressions. Yet, having spent good two weeks chasing
> exactly such regressions
> and IMHO improving editor experience to the point where
> both show-stopping as
> well as usability bugs have been by and large squashed, I
> certainly hope they
> will find their way eventually into the core Pd. The code
> produced so far has
> been clean and (apart from fprintf's for debugging purposes
> that are currently
> commented out awaiting further potential development)
> should be rather easy to
> merge into the main trunk. The real question is whether
> Hans, or perhaps more
> importantly Miller will find doing so to be of their
> interest.
> 
> All that said, I think I'll continue to maintain a L2Ork
> variation until either
> its feature-set becomes synonymous with the core Pd package
> or there is no more
> reason to maintain it (and FWIW as of right now there are
> plenty, so I don't see
> me stopping the support anytime soon).
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Ico
>