[L2Ork-dev] Getting ready for GSoC coding to begin

Jonathan Wilkes jon.w.wilkes at gmail.com
Thu May 28 12:25:39 EDT 2020

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 3:44 AM Albert Graef <aggraef at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:00 AM Albert Graef <aggraef at gmail.com> wrote:


Albert Graef via disis.music.vt.edu

3:44 AM (8 hours ago)

to l2ork-dev
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:00 AM Albert Graef <aggraef at gmail.com> wrote:
> While we're at it, there's yet another problem: I doubt that rev. 779f31dc entirely fixes the issue reported in #299.

> [...]

> Heck, apparently even Miller decided to fix this at some point, and he usually rejects *anything* which breaks backward compatibility in vanilla.

This was always an l2ork branch of code IIRC:

1. Ico added the bang method to pd-l2ork
2. I wrote Ico about the ambiguity wrt "symbol bang", added an issue,
and labeled the issue "good-first-bug"
3. Zack fixed that bug to get some practice submitting a merge request

So as I understand semantic versioning:

1. Ico added a feature: minor version bump
2. I took away that feature: major version bump

Someone who has used Purr Data for years can then look at the major bump
from 2 to 3 and take care updating given that there's a breaking change.

I guess I'm using semantic versioning to communication information about
pd-l2ork changes, and you're using it to communicate information about Vanilla

Not sure what the path forward is, but does all this sound correct so far?


More information about the L2Ork-dev mailing list