[PD] Cyclone future

Alexandre Torres Porres porres at gmail.com
Sun Feb 21 23:51:59 CET 2016

2016-02-21 18:18 GMT-03:00 IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig at iem.at>:
> this is about the worst possible outcome of the entire discussion.


There's nothing stating that all those objects need to be in the
> one-and-only library named "cyclone".

Yep, but there's some sense it'd be a good spot and nothing says they
shouldn't be in it too...

> having two libraries with similar tasks and similar (but distinguishable)
> names could be a win for everybody.

Maybe more like virtually the *same* tasks. the new could include the old
with updates (instead of just some separated objects) to keep related
objects together (here's pong, but if you want pong~ from max 4.6 get that
other library). Or... here's pong~ updated to Max 7, but there's and old
library with pong~ max 4.6. The more you look at it, it's just weird.

I hoped for a joint venture on the same project. I honestly think a fork
like that seemed like a last resource deal, a very drastic measure. "Hey,
this is a different name, but it's the same as that other one with a little
extra updates". I also agree with the reasoning of Ivica, who said.

2016-02-20 14:04 GMT-02:00 Ivica Ico Bukvic <ico at vt.edu>:

> The confusion one will have to deal with by creating cyclone/prepend vs.
> <some-other-lib>/pong is pointless at best.

Well, one way or another, this seems to be the outcome and I'm also deeply
sorry for it too.

But hey, there are others willing to help on this project, we could talk
about the future instead of what could've been.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20160221/1c1d2522/attachment.html>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list