i think this sounds a bit like over-engineering in our case.
Where do you see over-engineering?
we almost have this scheme.
Maybe I was a bit too vague. Of course, contributors like you and me
already do this. I was rather suggesting that Miller himself would also
use feature branches instead
On 2/6/23 23:07, Christof Ressi wrote:
Afterwards, maybe current development can be in the branch until
ready, ie. feature/multi-channel or develop/0.54, etc?
That's what I would suggest in general.
It would be great if all new features, rewrites, experiments, etc. could
be made in feature
, 2023, at 12:00 PM, pd-dev-requ...@lists.iem.at wrote:
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 09:44:36 +0100
From: IOhannes m zmoelnig
To:pd-dev@lists.iem.at
Subject: [PD-dev] branch names (was Re: figuring out how to get
everything merged)
Message-ID: <47a595e9-4e0a-12fb-1432-41803fc6c...@iem.at>
C
>>
> To: pd-dev@lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-dev@lists.iem.at>
> Subject: [PD-dev] branch names (was Re: figuring out how to get
> everything merged)
> Message-ID: <47a595e9-4e0a-12fb-1432-41803fc6c...@iem.at
> <mailto:47a595e9-4e0a-12fb-1432-41803fc6c...@iem
On 2/5/23 22:37, Miller Puckette via Pd-dev wrote:
Yep, I originally made a "0.53" branch but then messed it up so badly
I had to start over - and thought it better to change the name to
avoid confusion.
i see.
it seems like the "avoid confusion" did not utterly succeed though ;-)
in any
