Richard Bown wrote: >> Unless there's a popular outcry against this, I'd like to leave >> control rulers aside for a while and get back to the 'experimental' >> mmap-based branch a little. > > Go for it. I've been undecided on whether we should pursue this for > 1.0 due mainly to lack of action on it
I rather strongly feel we should do. That's partly because I've seen enough to be persuaded that it can work nicely in practice, and partly because (for work-related reasons) I'm rather more confident now with the mechanism it uses than I was when it was first implemented, and I think it's just the right way to do it. I was opposed to trying to do it this way at first, but I'm happy to admit this is one argument I've comprehensively lost. In fact I would say that if you (Guillaume) feel you have time to work on this code now, then we might be better served if we just got it back in working order again and immediately merged it back to the HEAD for continuing development than if you spent any significant amount of time continuing to work on it on the branch. If we can get SourceForge CVS to work for more than five minutes at a time, that is. (Sorry if I'm being a bit verbose here -- I'm typing through a thick hangover.) Chris ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
