[PD] Get list of a the arguments of a patch without using any external?
chris at mccormick.cx
Wed Mar 9 03:15:55 CET 2011
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 12:31:43PM -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Chris McCormick wrote:
>> This is not realistic. If you look at any large FLOSS project, patches
>> lie dormant, are ignored, are rejected for the wrong reasons all of the
>> time. Submit a patch to the Linux kernel and see what happens. Most
>> likely it will be silently dropped.
> Do you mean we have to adopt and accept the same problems that are sure
> signs of a project's overwhelming success ? Would that bring us
> overwhelming success too ?
No, that is not my point. I'm sorry I was unclear. I meant to show a causal
chain that does exist in most FLOSS projects, including Pd. I did not mean to
advocate a particular style of software management, or the adoption and
acceptance of any problems.
The causal chain works like this:
* You desire to contribute a patch to the project.
* You post the patch and advocate it.
* In advocating you avoid antagonising those who will do the applying.
* Eventually the patch might be applied.
>> In my experience, the best way to get a patch accepted in most projects
>> is to invest time in engaging socially. The reality is that often the
>> onus is on the submitter to advocate for their patch.
> Don't you think a lot more patches would go through if the users wanting
> the features weren't sitting around saying things like "the onus is on
> the submitter" or just being quiet, and instead promoted the patches ?
Yes, that is almost certainly true. At last I have found a new years
resolution, thank you.
So now we have two ways to help patches go through:
* Promote patches that you want to be applied.
* Don't be a jerk.
> In a large project, people have the luxury to say things like "the onus
> is on the submitter", because if that scares away 1000 developers,
> there's another 1000 developers working on the project anyway.
I hope I have not scared away any developers. That is the opposite of my
>> In this case a sensible place to do that would be pd-dev list.
> I don't see the connection between babbling on pd-dev and getting a patch
> approved by someone who rarely writes on pd-dev.
Consider this mechanism:
* You convince yourself to write in a less hostile way.
* You promote your patches on pd-dev (sure, "babbling").
* Hans applies your patch to his version.
* Miller pulls the change from Hans' version.
* Everybody wins.
Realistic? To me it seems more likely to get a patch applied than active
>> Demanding that your patch is more important than the other things a
>> volunteer-maintainer might need to do with their time
> I thought you were trying to be realistic about the situation. We need
> not invent additional problems.
I was referring to this statement:
"PS: the [delwrite~] clear method is still assigned to 'nobody', because it's
waiting for any of the five project admins to click on a button..."
It implies that the application of the [delwrite~] clear method patch has been
too slow for your liking, which implies that the five project admins should
have found the application of the [delwrite~] clear method more important than
whatever it is they have been doing which isn't clicking that button.
"Demanding" is too strong a word. I'm sorry that I used that word. Probably I
should have written "implying".
>> Likewise if you somehow imply that the maintainer owes you something
> Likewise if you somehow imply that a patch-submitter is bound by some
> kind of onus, so that he does your promotion job for you, for inclusion
> in a branch he doesn't need, for a patch he doesn't need either...
I'm sorry, this was badly phrased. I meant to say that given the condition that
the patch submitter wants their patch to be merged, then the onus is on the
patch submitter to advocate for acceptance of the patch.
Because you submitted the patch to the patch tracker, and then complained that
nobody had clicked the button, I assumed that you wanted the patch applied.
Your statement "for a patch he doesn't need either..." indicates that you
actually aren't interested in the patch being applied. If this is indeed the
case, please feel free to resume your normal trend of thinly veiled insolence.
You are correct that anyone who wants the patch applied should also do the job
of promoting the patch. I am convinced by that argument.
>> Seriously, I find it weird that I even have to write this.
> You don't "have" to.
You are correct, that was badly phrased.
More information about the Pd-list