[PD] Pd-extended 0.43 updates: lots of new editing features

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

Now that's you have your own fork going, I think the whole process
should be a lot easier.  Running Pd-extended made the patch process much
easier for me.  Having an active fork means that you can develop new
fixes and features, then test and use them, and go back and fix them. 
Then once a bug fix and/or feature is really nailed down and well
tested, then that's the time to submit it to the patch tracker.  Unless
its a simple, critical bugfix, I rarely submit patches from Pd-extended
before they've been included in a test release and therefore tested by a
bunch of people.

Yes, submitting good patches definitely takes a lot of time, but it
saves everyone time in the long run.  I've submitted one quarter of the
patches in the tracker, so I think I've got a pretty good idea of how
much time it takes to submit patches ;-)

.hc

On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:45 +0200, "Ivica Ico Bukvic" <ico at vt.edu> wrote:
> 
> While this may be so for a number of patches, my personal experience has
> been somewhat different with responses most of the time having nothing to
> do with the patch at hand (if I got any in the first place). I imagine if
> a patch is declined one would expect it being reported as such with an
> explanation as to what is the reason for such decision, and ideally with
> a response that actually makes sense so that an appropriate improvement
> can be made.
> 
> Similarly, while I fully understand that reviewing patches can be quite
> time consuming, please do not forget that fixing a bug and creating a
> report in the patch tracker together with supporting documentation can be
> doubly so.
> 
> Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A
> Composition, Music Technology
> Director, DISIS Interactive Sound & Intermedia Studio
> Director, L2Ork LinuxLaptop Orchestra
> Assistant Co-Director, CCTAD
> CHCI, CS, and Art (by courtesy)
> Virginia Tech
> Department of Music
> Blacksburg, VA 24061-0240
> (540) 231-6139
> (540) 231-5034 (fax)
> disis.music.vt.edu
> l2ork.music.vt.edu
> ico.bukvic.net
> 
> Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:39 +0200, "Ivica Ico Bukvic" <ico at vt.edu> wrote:
> > > I ended up refactoring the magic glass and highlighting code quite a
> > > bit, I think there might be something worth checking out. As for
> > > other bug fixes, it would be great to have them in the patch tracker
> > > so we can sort them out. It would take me a massive amount of time to
> > > figure out what code changes are for what in pdl2ork since there isn't
> > > any version control (that I could find at least) and it seems to be a
> > > mix of 0.42 and 0.43 versions.
> > 
> > It's based off of 0.42.6 extended tree. As for submitting patches, I've
> > been doing this in the past. Alas, a good number of them never got any
> > attention which is not very encouraging.
> 
> If you look at the patch tracker, and filter on Closed ones, you'll see
> which ones get accepted. Most do. It takes a lot of time to review
> patches, so if they don't cleanly apply and build, then I'm not really
> likely to pursue it much further. I've tried figuring out patches like
> that in the past, and it just takes too much time to try to figure out
> what's wrong, etc. and it doesn't speak well of the patch if it doesn't
> past the first hurdle.
> 
> .hc
> 
>