On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Dan Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh I know. It just seems a shame to say: "Well, somebody might have a patch > somewhere from 10 years ago that relies on a 10 year old version of a library > that mimics a 10 year old version of Max running on a 10+ year old > computer/os and we can't break that, ever." > > For vanilla objects yeah, I get it, but for externals isn't it also > reasonable able to say: "It's been 10 years maybe I might need to update that > patch that uses that 10 year old external lib." > > I'm not saying break things arbitrarily but, in the case of Max, they don't > want to break people's patches either (and I bet there are more patches out > in the wild than Pd patches). What has max changed object-wise between 4.6 & > 7 that actually breaks things? I'd say very little and, if so, the whole > argument is kind of moot so why not just introduce those non breaking changes > made by Max? > > If only we had someone who could extensively test, compare versions, and make > notes about these differences. That would make not easy to see what might be > a problem an what's easy to add. Oh wait, hasn't Alexandre been spending alot > of time doing just that? > > IE if an object historically had one output and and update adds another, how > does that break old patches that only use 1 output?
It doesn't, and it sounds better than: >> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Dan Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote: >>> What about versioning? If people *have* to have older compatibility, then >>> why can’t they just run an older version of cyclone? _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
