Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

What is the purpose of this repository? #1

Closed
LFSaw opened this Issue Mar 11, 2019 · 15 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
9 participants
@LFSaw
Copy link

LFSaw commented Mar 11, 2019

Following discussions on the sc-dev mailinglist, I open this issue for general discussion.

My proposed fix is to close this repository in favour of individual, user-hosted repositories for external sc plugins, provided

  • authoring (done! cookecutter, awesome!)
  • distributing
  • finding
  • installing

individually-built plugins. Before starting any migrations. WIP is ok (i.e. we don't need a package manager before getting started), as long as it works.

(Thanks for the wording, michael). I’d add to this that IMHO this repository was added too early in the discussion process and its purpose is not clearly defined, hence the title of this issue.

@brianlheim

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

brianlheim commented Mar 11, 2019

imho a proposal to close this is also premature and needlessly aggressive toward nathan. let's take some more time to continue discussing it on the mailing list, and not escalate things this way.

also, the link you posted is broken.

@LFSaw

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

LFSaw commented Mar 11, 2019

@muellmusik

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

muellmusik commented Mar 11, 2019

needlessly aggressive

I'm fairly sure that wasn't the intention. There seems to be a lot of disagreement and need for further discussion around this, so perhaps it's more productive to work towards agreement than focus on who did what too early.

@brianlheim

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

brianlheim commented Mar 11, 2019

I'm fairly sure that wasn't the intention.

my point was not about the intention, it was about the effect. we can discuss this without penalizing people for their enthusiasm.

@muellmusik

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

muellmusik commented Mar 11, 2019

we can discuss this without penalizing people for their enthusiasm.

Or with penalising people for raising concerns. Calling them aggressive would be an example of that, IMHO. I'm sure you agree that intention matters, especially in cases of misinterpretation.

Till seems to be withdrawing as well, btw.

@telephon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

telephon commented Mar 11, 2019

The more work is already invested, the more concerns with its implications are prone to be perceived as aggressive or dismissive.

@muellmusik

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

muellmusik commented Mar 11, 2019

The more work is already invested, the more concerns with its implications are prone to be perceived as aggressive or dismissive.

Yes. And the stronger the pushback, the more likely that people will feel their concerns and contributions to discussion are considered valueless. This has happened several times here recently (and of course countless times before). In the absence of direct interaction (tone of voice, facial expression, body language, and other primate stuff) it's even easier to get this wrong. A little patience and benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

@joslloand

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

joslloand commented Mar 11, 2019

also, the link you posted is broken.

Here's the link: [sc-dev] the future of sc3-plugins

And the original bullets for why:

  1. we freeze sc3-plugins and disallow merging any new ugens, instead encouraging ugen developers to make third-party plugin packages with the cookiecutter repo.
  2. a few good ugens should be merged to core. some of the more specialized parts of sc3-plugins such as Atk and FOA could be moved into third-party repos.
  3. we introduce a new "incubator" repository that contains only ugens that are being actively worked on as serious contenders for inclusion in core. my reverb (NHHall) would be an example of a ugen in incubation -- it's 90% ready for core, but i'm still making adjustments to sound and improving CPU usage. (patrick remarked to me recently that i don't promote my work enough, so: check out NHHall if you haven't tried it.)
  4. over time, through this incubator, we write new, awesome ugens that provide better alternatives to everyone's favorite sc3-plugins. these plugins are eventually moved to core.
  5. gradually, the usefulness of sc3-plugins erodes, and it falls into disuse because better options are available for all the needs it fulfills. developers spend less time trying to maintain it, users waste less brain cells trying to figure out which filters don't blow up.
@joslloand

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

joslloand commented Mar 11, 2019

In my reading of @snappizz original points 3 & 4, the incubator appears as a holding pen with an intention to move later migrate these held plugins to the core.

I'm an advocate for reducing the size of the core, rather than increasing it...

@telephon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

telephon commented Mar 16, 2019

Hm, ok. So what about ugens in sc3-plugins that are useful and well written whose authors have no time to rewrite them or are not active any more? Should we let them erode? Or are there none of those perhaps? (I am not sure!)

@joslloand

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

joslloand commented Mar 18, 2019

@telephon good question....

Which also brings up, what do we think is (or was?)† the purpose of sc3-plugins? The thing I'm worried about is the role of sc3-plugins or incubator as a staging post before hitting the core, as this implies an ever expanding core.

Obviously, what this discussion is really about is how to preserve what is great about sc3-plugins while moving forward to something more reliable and maintainable. My feeling is that in the long term some sort of package management system along the lines of Quarks-for-UGens would offer advantages.

Yeah, but what about the short term?

@joshpar could clarify his view of the initial intentions behind sc3-plugins.

@joshpar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

joshpar commented Mar 18, 2019

"Intent' is a strong word in this context. It was a place for myself and blackrain (then others) to release things that we thought were cool and wanted to share. Platforms were limited back then, and it was just useful. It gave us a way to also have students in my classes at the time have an easy way to pull down pre-compiled plugins that I taught off of. Since these were the first user-contributed plugins, the main concern was 'does it compile and run?'. It wasn't seen by me as an incubator, but over time a number of things that were in sc3-plugins were pulled in ... not because of any set process, but because enough people thought it made sense (reverbs, Warp1... BEQSuite...).

@patrickdupuis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

patrickdupuis commented Mar 18, 2019

@joslloand What exactly are your concerns with regards to "an ever expanding core"? I believe that most SuperCollider users would welcome a greater number of quality UGens inside the core library.

@jamshark70

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

jamshark70 commented Mar 18, 2019

I'll summarize his point. If there's an "incubator," it signals an intent to grow the core set of plugins indefinitely. But developer resources to maintain a continually growing core are finite.

I find that part of his point convincing.

He's also suggested reducing core to a minimal set, and making it easy to install additional plugins. I don't see how we can do that, practically, without upsetting large numbers of users who would suddenly have to add extensions for things that used to work out of the box.

@snappizz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

snappizz commented Mar 18, 2019

please use the mailing list for discussion, not here, thanks

@snappizz snappizz closed this Mar 18, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.
You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.