- Original Message -
From: D. Michael McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: rosegarden-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Rosegarden-devel] Pitchtracker release
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 6:07 pm, Nicholas Bailey wrote:
Côtes du Rhône). One has
Any comments on this one? For a while I've been sitting on a script that
reshuffles the code in the gui/ directory of a Rosegarden tree into a set of
subdirectories, each with a potentially large set of source files that in
most cases have only one class per file.
It doesn't actually produce
Chris Cannam wrote:
Any comments on this one? For a while I've been sitting on a script that
reshuffles the code in the gui/ directory of a Rosegarden tree into a set of
subdirectories, each with a potentially large set of source files that in
most cases have only one class per file.
On Wednesday 02 Aug 2006 16:25, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
What would a better directory structure look like?
No idea, however I'm not comfortable with the idea of doing this in one
huge pass. I'd much rather do it through a series of small changes,
every time keeping the whole thing buildable
On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 16:01 +0100, Chris Cannam wrote:
Any comments on this one? For a while I've been sitting on a script that
reshuffles the code in the gui/ directory of a Rosegarden tree into a set of
subdirectories, each with a potentially large set of source files that in
most cases
Chris Cannam wrote:
On Wednesday 02 Aug 2006 16:57, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
Before doing the split into one-class-per-file, we could already sort the
current files into a better directory structure, though.
Why? As you can see from the listing I sent, the files are redistributed
On Wednesday 02 Aug 2006 08:15, D. Michael McIntyre wrote:
I still have some fiddling to do. Several loose ends to tie up, and
a couple of minor bugs to fix. It's basically officially working
now, after more hours than I care to think about. Wow, this sure was
easier to talk about than to
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 5:04 am, Erik Magnus Johansson wrote:
EMJ: Well, they actually make ethanol of it which then ends up as fuel in
my car. Quite good, and my prefered way of consuming alcohol.
That Pavillion Rouge E85 tastes a bit of oak, with nutty overtones, but the
petroleum
On Wednesday 02 Aug 2006 16:01, Chris Cannam wrote:
Another thing is that this would do absolutely nothing to solve the
problem of some of our individual classes (RosegardenGUI*,
NotationView etc) being so ridiculously huge. We'd have to address
that in a separate refactoring stage
On Wednesday 02 Aug 2006 20:31, D. Michael McIntyre wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 5:04 am, Erik Magnus Johansson wrote:
EMJ: Well, they actually make ethanol of it which then ends up as
fuel in my car. Quite good, and my prefered way of consuming
alcohol.
That Pavillion Rouge E85
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 3:29 pm, Chris Cannam wrote:
Just tried it out -- very nice! What a great little dialog.
Why thank you!
Of course
I can now visualise all sorts of enhancements (e.g. a pitch range
preview illustration on the dialog), but I should probably shut up
about those
On Wednesday, 2 August 2006 17:01, Chris Cannam wrote:
So the question is, would a reorganisation like this be a good thing?
Definitely, yes.
Would it make the code easier or harder to work on?
Surely easier. Good bye gui/dialogs.*!!! It is a PITA to add a new dialog on
these source
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 11:01 am, Chris Cannam wrote:
Any comments on this one? For a while I've been sitting on a script that
reshuffles the code in the gui/ directory of a Rosegarden tree into a set
of subdirectories, each with a potentially large set of source files that
in most cases
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 5:26 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Finish up the first basic feature in the new-style tempo ruler -- you can
now click-drag to increase or decrease a given tempo change
The dragging thing is very nice!
I don't remember what you have planned, or what's in scope
14 matches
Mail list logo
