On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Stefan Westerfeld wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:17:41AM +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
>>> So as far as I can see there is a use case for the behaviour I
>>> implemented, unless we find a way to express seperate modulation in
>>> beast with the same elegance but in a different way than I do it right
>>> now.
>>
>> fine, what about adding a checkbox to the script then that preserves
>> your use case behavior?
>> [ ] Only assign tracks connected to 'Master' bus
>>
>>> But I've personally never encountered a use case for reassigning
>>> unconnected busses other than the midi importer,
>>
>> yes, i know. that's why i keep telling you that *others* are
>> encountering these cases. so the use case exists, even if it
>> isn't exhibited by your personal usage patterns.
>
> It would be great if you could share your insight into the goals,
> motivations, workflow and usage patterns of these other users to a
> degree that I can clearly understand that you are right.
1. start beast
2. activate Project/New Song
3. actiavte Tracks/Add multiple times
4. select Mixer/Inputs, remove tracks from Master-1 bus
5. do anything distracting you from the current track setup
(go on holidays, come back 2 years later)
6. observer unconnected Tracks
7. select Tools/Song/Assign Tracks to individual Mixer busses
contrary to its labeling, the script from step 7. has no effect
on the unconnected tracks.
> So saying: somebody needs it, trust me, is not enough.
that is not what i said, thank you for misquoting.
however, i'm sorry for assuming that you're aware
of the functionality beast offers for step 4.
> Cu... Stefan
---
ciaoTJ
_______________________________________________
beast mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/beast
