[LAU] [LAD] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release

torbenh torbenh at gmx.de
Fri Jan 28 15:37:10 UTC 2011


On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:38:39PM -0700, Christopher Cherrett wrote:
> -------- Original Message  --------
> Subject: Re: [LAU] [LAD] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
> From: Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora at gmail.com>
> To: Paul Davis <paul at linuxaudiosystems.com>
> Cc: LAU Mail List <linux-audio-user at lists.linuxaudio.org>, Linux
> Audio Developers <Linux-audio-dev at lists.linuxaudio.org>
> Date: 01/27/2011 11:26 AM
> >On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
> >>On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:39 AM, alex stone wrote:
> >>>Deep in the basement of the OpenOctaveProject, the team have been
> >>>working hard, to bring OpenOctaveMidi into the modern age. From the
> >>>new interface, to the workflow features, OOM2 is the result of a great
> >>>deal of hard work, and thought. In our Project journey towards a great
> >>>Linux Audio pipeline, OOM2 represents the next important step.
> >>I think it would be a little more respectful if you notified this
> >>crowd precisely which *existing* codebase you "put a blowtorch to". i
> >>already know the answer, but i think it would better to hear it from
> >>you guys. altering the indentation and global search-and-replace of
> >>the project name does not constitute much of a blowtorch.
> >>
> >Hi Paul,
> >
> >Let me shed some light from the opposite side.
> >
> >I was one of the developers of the "existing codebase" [1]. Actually,
> >I joined the project formally about 3 months ago and I believe I made
> >a significant contribution in porting it to Qt4. The way I joined to
> >the project was traditional: sent a couple useful patches so that
> >people can get to know me, and after a couple rounds I got commit
> >rights. From my experience with open source projects, this is the way
> >things evolve. (I sent patches to ardour too in the past, you folks
> >have been friendly all the time. I am pretty sure same thing would
> >have happened if I contributed more frequently.)
> >
> >OOM folks took a different approach. Originally, we granted them an
> >SVN branch and we were working under the same umbrella. They put
> >really hard work in their branch, and I admired most of what they did.
> >The plan was to merge their new features into the trunk. So we asked
> >for patches for individual features. This never came from them.
> >Instead they wanted us to grab everything (or a subset) as is. Our
> >team did not have the resources to take the diff of each individual
> >file to filter out each separate feature, and we simply didn't want to
> >accept *everything* as is. Thus, we proposed them to fork. This is
> >purely due to differences in the workflow and creativity.
> Thanks for the clarification.

this was not a clarification.
i looked at your repo.

its under no circumstances mergeable.
you say your moving too fast.

your not tidying things up.
this is going to come down on you later.

you really need to keep your history clean. 
take a bit of time. use git rebase -i
before you push stuff upstream.
(or at least before you merge it into the master branch)

this makes me sad.


> >Anyhow, I wish them good luck with their project.

thats what theyll need :S


-- 
torben Hohn


More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list