--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
[PATCH] gnu: Add bchoppr. |
|
Date: |
Fri, 10 Apr 2020 13:38:22 +0100 |
|
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.32.4 |
Hi,
These patches add 3 new LV2 plugins by the same author as bsequencer:
bchoppr
bshapr
bjumblr
Thanks,
Alex
0003-gnu-Add-bjumblr.patch
Description: Text Data
0002-gnu-Add-bshapr.patch
Description: Text Data
0001-gnu-Add-bchoppr.patch
Description: Text Data
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: [bug#40537] [PATCH] gnu: Add bchoppr. |
|
Date: |
Sun, 03 May 2020 11:19:48 +0100 |
|
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.3 |
Alexandros Theodotou <address@hidden> writes:
> I think these should inherit from bsequencer since these are plugins by
> the same author and it's reasonable that they follow the same build
> procedure. We already to do this for other similar situations and it
> also makes maintenance easier and DRY. Perhaps moving them below
> bsequencer would be a better solution?
Sorry for the slow reply. In terms of maintenance going forward, the
cost of inheritance is that it means that changes to one package
definition can effect others. So the question should be, should changes
to bsequencer like the inputs or arguments be applied to bchoppr as
well.
Anyway, these things become clearer with time. I've gone ahead and
pushed this (the 1.4.2 version) as
d5aee5003422c1cc4f3adfe016a24cc1b9c35881. I've moved the package up from
the bottom of the file, and tweaked the commit message (capital N in
new).
Chris
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---