-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
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
☂ 1.0 punchlist #4
Comments
Current message types (string, int, float) are sufficient for my usual needs and I assume the needs of most users; I think a minimal 1.0 release should, however, include the remaining two types from the OSC spec (blobs and timestamps). I've not really used the timestamp-scheduling features of OSC, not sure if its use is prevalent or not. I think that covers the OSC 1.0 spec...? |
fyi @jeffmikels, please chime in if there are other things you would value in a |
I don't know much about timestamps, but I think Also, |
Really I should do that sooner. (Are you using a git dependency? Gross to have to resort to that.) I'll look at timestamps but also consider pushing a 0.8 to pub. Thanks for following up! |
@pq would it be possible to have the current version published on pub as it would be bit nicer than using via git. For me I think the current functionality would be enough, as my usecase is just to communicate from a Dart cli app on a headless RPI (but initially Flutter app too) with a PD patch, as I'm finding it's quite a lot of work wrapping libPD via FFI, especially dealing with ALSA. |
I'll take a look in the next few days. I should really sort out #8 but features can wait. Thanks for the nudge! EDIT: looks like I did wrap up licensing and contributing docs already but forgot to update the issues 😬. This should be good to go after I update some deps. |
Published. 👍 |
@pq the package is working really well for my project, thank you again for publishing it! 👍🏻 |
So glad to hear. Have fun! |
Follow-up from #3 (comment), a meta-issue to track features for a basic
1.0
release.In general, one view 1.0-readiness might be associated w/ OSC spec completeness which leaves:
Plus some general tidying up:
Slipped to next release:
timestamp codec support(support OSC-timetag datatypes #5)/cc @monkeyswarm for thoughts?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: