On Jul 7, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Thu, 7/7/11, Hans-Christoph Steiner <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PD] Pd-extended 0.43 updates: lots of new editing
features
To: "Jonathan Wilkes" <[email protected]>, "Ivica Ico Bukvic" <[email protected]
>
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, July 7, 2011, 9:20 PM
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 10:06 -0700, "Jonathan Wilkes" <[email protected]
>
wrote:
--- On Thu, 7/7/11, Hans-Christoph Steiner <[email protected]>
wrote:
From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PD] Pd-extended 0.43 updates: lots
of new editing features
To: "Ivica Ico Bukvic" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, July 7, 2011, 5:33 PM
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:39 +0200, "Ivica Ico
Bukvic" <[email protected]> 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
bugfix 3127123 Closed
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3127123&group_id=55736&atid=478072
Accepted with comments. Am I missing something?
bugfix 3110267 Open, no comments, no assignees
patch 3077431 Open, comments, I emailed the cyclone
author to ask if he's
ok with Ico's improvements...
No word from the upstream author of cyclone, he's not
active anymore.
The focus of the cyclone library is to be clones of Max/MSP
objects.
The Max/MSP stuff is proprietary, so we can only guess at how the
code is actually written. So to get a "clone" of a Max object one
needs to a) read the Max docs, and b) compare results from using
[foo] in Max to using [foo] in Pd.
Ico seems to be saying that Max's [coll] isn't causing audio
dropouts, and Pd's is, and that his patch fixes this. AFAICT his
implementation still adheres to the interface for [coll] listed in
the Max docs, so I don't see how this isn't a better clone of Max's
[coll] behavior.
I'm not in a place to test that stuff, so I'm not likely to
handle
patches for cyclone. I don't really have a criteria
to judge if its
correct, unless its a really simple bugfix.
But if Mr. Czaja says, "Sure, go ahead," you won't have a problem
with this patch, right?
That is correct.
bugfix 3109768 Open, and I added a new comment (Note:
the comment I added
is fixed in Pd-l2ork)
donno, haven't reviewed
bugfix 3108513 Open, no comments
patch out of date, applies to 0.42 but not 0.43
* bugfix 3106837 Open, comments
commented: Looks worth including, but with GOP bugs, I'm
currently
waiting to see what Miller is going to do with GOP
restructuring before
tackling this stuff.
I still don't really have a
grasp of the GOP code,
so I don't know what the repercussions of GOP-related
patches are. From
my experience, one little simple fix causes some weird
behavior
elsewhere.
bugfix 3106799 Open, comments, bug still exists (Note:
fixed in Pd-l2ork)
bugfix 3102512 Open, comments
patch 1670440 Closed, accepted
If any of these didn't apply cleanly and didn't build,
there's no comment
indicating so.
I haven't necessarily had time to review everything,
nagging and poking
me is perfectly appropriate if you think I should review
something.
Ok, but it's not really a solution, because the time I have to nag
and poke is probably about the same amount that you have to review
stuff.
That's just one option. You could also maintain your own fork/branch
and accept these patches yourself. That's another option that seems
to be working for Ico. I fix things that affect my work because I see
them. I try to do as much as I can otherwise, but like you say, time
is limited.
The problem with forks is if improvements don't migrate upstream.
Then we don't benefit from sharing the fixes. Making things migrate
upstream takes time in itself. Try getting a patch into the Linux
kernel, that'll make Pd seem like cake ;-)
.hc
-Jonathan
And
anything assigned to Miller and reviewed positively by
IOhannes I'm
going to defer any action on until Miller responds.
.hc
-Jonathan
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[T]he greatest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own
government." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
