28 Jan
2011
28 Jan
'11
4:37 p.m.
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(a)gmail.com>
To: Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>
Cc: LAU Mail List <linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>rg>, Linux
Audio Developers <Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>
Date: 01/27/2011 11:26 AM
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.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Paul Davis
wrote:
Thanks for the
clarification. On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:39 AM, alex stone
wrote:
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. 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.
>Anyhow, I wish them good luck with their project.
thats what theyll need :S
--
torben Hohn