IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: > the separate externals reflect the separate developments by separate > (groups of) people. > there is no "official" externals-package that are to be packaged > together, even though pd-extended makes it look like this; but > pd-extended is "yet another project" that is targetted at a big > get-everything package: which is fine from an end-user point-of-view, > but not necessarily from a developer's point-of-view.
Yes, I do agree that it makes sense to fit the tool to the desired model of devleopment, and not fit development to the tool ... > my initial arguing was, that for packages (like pd-extended) one could > create a bundle (e.g. svn:externals) that aggragates everything needed > in another subfolder. > back then (search the archives for "svn migration" or similar in > 2007-09) the the answer to this was: "we should not beta-test > experimental features of svn" (this is what i was alluding to in my > first response to this thread) Ah, ok. Well, in my opinion, svn:externals works great. I have been using it heavily for the past couple of years with various projects and have not had any problems. -- Russell _______________________________________________ PD-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
