On Thu, 2012-10-04 at 13:16 -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: [...] > > Also, I wanted to know which is mature enough so that it's > > worth to write bug reports to its author. This consumes quite some time > > and I think everyone who discovers that there are many solutions for her > > problem needs to invest some time to find out which works best. > > Personally, I think this is lost time, because not only it needs twice > > as much time to implement the same thing twice, every user needs to > > figure out the small differences. > > Well aware, that this (my) opinion is likely not applicable to others, I > > tend to think that patches are too much treated like holy cows whose > > breaking should be avoided by any means. If it turns out, that my > > patches use an inferior of concurrent implementations, I'd be happy to > > switch them to the new class, especially if it helps to keep the future > > clean. > > Advocate for the superior external, write crystal clear documentation > for it, and write crystal clear documentation for the inferior one to explain > why to use the other one. Then get the authors to accept your doc changes > (or doc creation as the case may be). That's the only way to ensure that > your lost time doesn't become other users' lost time.
You are right. I agree with you that this is probably the best (most pragmatic / most realistic) way to have an influence as a non-ext-dev on the issue. > I'll give you an example later when I update the arraysize help patch. I'll happily check it, when it is ready. Thanks for your thoughts. Roman _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
