When we originally discussed this idea, we set forth a few principals. We
never voted on them, but I stated that if backwards compatibly were broken,
we would absolutely need to maintain the MIDI data.
If this principal changes, we will be hard pressed to get buy in from the
masses. We should certainly tread lightly on the "nothing old will work"
attitude, as it is a slippery slope. :)
Innovation takes change, but change takes acceptance and we need to have a
fine balance between the two.
-Tres
- tres.finocchi...@gmail.com
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Stian Jørgensrud <stian...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Rob Kudla wrote
> > At a minimum, it should import the tracks' note events as though they're
> > coming from a standard MIDI file, perhaps with an idiot dialog that says
> > "Here's the notes, but now you're on your own". Most people on this list,
> > myself included, could write something that lazy in an afternoon.
>
> Well, Rob, if you could write a lazy converter in an evening I don't see
> any
> problem here... So that is good news! If you could write the export to MIDI
> function for LMMS 1.X you would solve all big backward comp issues :o
>
>
> Rob Kudla wrote
> > If this is the current development team's outlook, I really think LMMS
> 2.x
> > needs to be called something other than LMMS (and the project file
> > extensions should change too.) I can't speak for anyone else, but
> > personally, I'm never, ever done with a piece of music.
>
> Thoughts about changing the extension have been presented. Can I add to
> this
> discussion that it might be wise not to use mmp2 and mmpz2 for LMMS2,
> because that could look strange after LMMS2 (LMMS3, 4,5..). Maybe .lmms and
> .lmmsz ?
>
> Idk, what will happen with all the projects on the lsp (they surely won't
> be
> deleted, but converted to the new format is unlikely too?). Ideally one
> will
> show the version number online on the lsp so people will know if they can
> open the project or not, we have discussed this here (in three different
> issues): https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/1196
>
>
> Rob Kudla wrote
> > The free software world, especially the multimedia side, is littered with
> > the remains of projects that began to stagnate
>
> I don't understand why that is specific to the free software world, and I
> don't think so. Millions (probably a lot more) of commercial businesses
> goes
> bankrupt each year. With free software there is at least the possibility to
> continue the project in another way even if it goes "bankrupt".
>
>
> David Gerard-2 wrote
> > If LMMS 2 is file-incompatible with LMMS 1, it's not the same software at
> > all.
>
> Didn't quite catch that argument.
>
>
> David Gerard-2 wrote
> > I fully appreciate how messed-up some codebases can be. I follow
> > LibreOffice. Hoo boy. They had a *mess* to deal with. And they
> > couldn't just tell everyone to throw away their documents and write
> > new documents.
>
> Yeah, I totally agree that LiberOffice is/was a mess, and I haven't even
> looked at the code base. I guess I am just talking about bad GUI, though.
> Not trying to say anything bad about it, it is the best, I just think it
> could be more logical and structured. I might be awfully wrong now, perhaps
> I confuse Openoffice and Libre in my brain. And again I am only talking
> about GUI here, I think I'll stop now.
>
>
> Rob Kudla wrote
> > LMMS deserves better. Better than "bitrot", better than "overambitious
> > laughingstock",
>
> Hmm, but this isn't a split up between developers, as of now there don't
> seem to be to different versions or communities around LMMS rising either.
> This is a continuation of the development. Vesa is the only one deep down
> in
> LMMS code as of now, and thus he could be developing a program only for
> himself, but I feel the rest of us have something to say. I feel we are
> fairly democratic, at least the inner circle (those who are very active),
> if
> a lot of us disagree there are usually something stopping the minority from
> completing it, maybe moral, I really don't know.
>
> Apart from that automation tracks changes, I can't come up with anything
> that will alter the way I or you work with LMMS, so it is mostly inner
> changes in how the program works which breaks backward compat, and that
> means even if Vesa is making this program solely for himself these changes
> aren't ruining for the rest of us?
>
> So, what if keeping complexity and not moving on? As Vesa said, then people
> might decide that LMMS is too hard to work on and leave.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://linux-multimedia-studio-lmms.996328.n3.nabble.com/Moving-on-tp10850p10880.html
> Sent from the lmms-devel mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server
> from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards
> with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more
> Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> LMMS-devel mailing list
> LMMS-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server
from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards
with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more
Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
LMMS-devel mailing list
LMMS-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
