On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 17:35:45 +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote
Yes, and why shouldn't it? I read it as a marker to show which
files have been changed.
> but this is my personal reading of Fons' statement.
Well, I would take it as a _marker_ - a small side rant:
since non of the original code is trakable with some version
control system (svn/git/bzr/hg...) I think it's a good idea to
add such markers. I've local modifications to Aeolus and that's
exactly how I mark the files I changed. With a working VCS a simple
'git diff' of 'git blame' could tell you what and how the original was
changed (and, with a caring coder, the commit messages would explain
why those changes were made). And of course, for every update of
Aeolus I have to hand-patch my local changes into uptream insteda of
a simple 'git merge' (or the hg/svn equivalent).
> > Both situations are ignorant of the spirit of FOSS in my opinion.
Au contraire - FOSS is all about sharing. When I read Fon's mail
yesterday evening I got the impression of an agressive/inpolite
fork, but after looking at the source code I fail to see this.
The readme/webpage explicitly mentions the upstream project
and Fons' authorship. What else could the author have done?
Inform Fons? Maybe, but maybe he considered the project to young/un-
official. Where _would_ you put a project to share with co-coders, iff
not on github?
Somehow I fail to see the crime commited ...
Adding an OSC interface to Aeolus seems a usefull adition - after all,
isn't Fons planning to add one?
> nevertheless i do share some feelings with fons.
Sometimes the tone on the mailing list (and comments about the
required quality of coding) make such enquiries seem daunting ... ;-)
Anyqay, just my 0.02$
Linux-audio-dev mailing list