[PD] consolidate backward- and MaxMSP compatibility in Cyclone (was: Purpose of Cyclone)

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

2015-12-22 15:25 GMT-02:00 Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list <pd-list at lists.iem.at
>:

> Hi anyone encouraging backward breakage,
> Please make a collection of as many patches as possible, from as many
> public
> sources as possible.
>
> Then mine this data to get a sense of what percentage of patches would be
> affected
> by changing a Cyclone class' behavior.
>
> Then let's continue with conversation.
>
> If no one is willing to do this, it's a tacit acknowledgement that Fred
> Jan is taking
> the only sensible approach to maintaining Cyclone.
>

I don't think I get this, or agree. Are you saying that people who wish to
break backwards compatibility should check if there's any patch out there
which could be affected, and then if no patch is affected we could change
it? That might be logical but not very reasonable.

But anyway, I don't think we should narrow the discussion to this!

I guess I might be "one" encouraging backward breakage, although I made
suggestions to not break it and said that the issue in discussion (the
average~ object) did not really pose this dilema - let me stress and
emphasize that I don't believe this is a "A" or "B" choice, and I hope we
do not really have to discuss this like that.

Katja made other suggestions on how to "meet in the middle", it is
perfectly possible to change the behaviour with an argument or a message, I
agree. No one here is just up for backwards compatibility breakage so let's
not, please, make this such a discussion...

What really concerns me is anyone encouraging the breakage of the purpose
of cyclone (compatibility to MaxMSP). I don't think this is sensible at
all, it is a major change of course in the project.

Again, we're not really facing a dilema between backwards compatibility
versus Max/MSP compatibility, but considering Max/MSP compatibility not a
priority (even acknowledging there's a mistake that shouldn't be there in
the first place) kills the main purpose of cyclone and that'ss serious. I'd
say it even points to a fork in the project. If such a detour in purpose
emerges from the maintenance, maybe we shouldn't call it "cyclone" anymore.

On te other hand, if one is encouraging Max/Msp compatibility breakage,
maybe this person could check first if any user will be affected by that
change. There's me right here, by the way :)

cheers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20151222/36f09feb/attachment.html>