Hi All,
On 2015-12-17 10:21 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 14:34 +0100, katja wrote:
With the decentralization of Pd lib version control it is hard to
locate / identify upstream source repositories. Would it be feasible
and useful to generate (and regularly update) an overview of forks
based on http://git.puredata.info/cgit/, to be referenced from
http://puredata.info/docs/developer/GettingPdSource?
I believe it would be hard to maintain such an overview. Who has to
maintain such a list? How can you control that people adhere to the
standards?
There are probably two types of 'forks'; one which maintains a library
of objects as is and one which is more like a remix of objects from
different libraries, combined for some specific purpose.
For at least the former is would be nice to have a description of the
relation between the different forks.
I would rather propose adding some mandatory meta information to deken
uploads. A package that can be downloaded from puredata.info should at
least contain the information which sources it was built from.
The puredata.info could host such a list in the public wiki.
It is not very convenient to download several packages just to find out
the most recent/bug free.
Further, I think it is the duty of the maintainer of a fork to make
clear what the origin of the fork is.
If those two things are considered, we have transparency and identifying
upstream should be feasible.
Roman
Fred Jan
_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
