[LV2] Dynamic manifest URIs and CAPS' strange case

David Robillard d at drobilla.net
Fri Feb 1 15:48:27 PST 2013

On Sat, 2013-02-02 at 00:28 +0200, Stefano D'Angelo wrote:
> 2013/2/2 David Robillard <d at drobilla.net>:
> > On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 23:48 +0200, Stefano D'Angelo wrote:
> >> Anyway, I still have two potentially tricky things to sort out. The
> >> first is whether it matters if I change URIs of dynamic manifests
> > I would be quite surprised if that's the case and changing the URI of
> > the DynManifest breaks anything.
> That's the same thing I thought. If nobody else will complain in
> reasonable time, I will just change them.

Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission :)

> The lazy part of me was suggesting the same, actually. Anyway, this
> leads to another smaller issue: what should I do with the manually
> edited LRDF-equivalent data? Update it to the new CAPS releases and
> thrash the old data? Only update the new stuff? Drop all LRDF-like
> data for CAPS? Currently I am going with the second option, but any
> change is quickly done.

Kind of depends on the nature of the actual changes, but personally I
would just update it and call it a day.  Life's too short to spend a ton
of time working around a very transient compatibility blip nobody will
care about in a few months.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.lv2plug.in/pipermail/devel-lv2plug.in/attachments/20130201/50d6e966/attachment-0002.pgp>

More information about the Devel mailing list