Hey guys the account on tux family has been created.
I noticed as well we can even point the domain at their name servers.
My question is this out of all these features what do we need
Webareas for lmms
MySQL DBs for lmms
PostgreSQL DBs for lmms
CVS repositories for lmms
SVN repositories fo
I have created an account with tux family I am now awaiting Project
approval and then we are good to go.
Will keep you all updated as things develop.
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Jonathan Aquilina
wrote:
> They never responded to my inquiry.
>
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Lukas W.
I have gone ahead and created an account. I am awaiting their second email
address to confirm that the account has been created.
--
Jonathan Aquilina
--
"Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FR
They never responded to my inquiry.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Lukas W. wrote:
> We understood that part. But has the Gandi team responded?
>
> Or, as I have asked earlier, could you just paste all the conversation in
> here? This way we'll know what's up.
>
>
> 2014-05-16 21:20 GMT+02:00
We understood that part. But has the Gandi team responded?
Or, as I have asked earlier, could you just paste all the conversation in
here? This way we'll know what's up.
2014-05-16 21:20 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Aquilina :
> I will apply with tux family tomorrow
> On 16 May 2014 19:55, "Tres Finocchi
I will apply with tux family tomorrow
On 16 May 2014 19:55, "Tres Finocchiaro" wrote:
> No tres found another free hosting provider called tux family. I will work
>> on applying tomorrow
>>
> Jonathan, gandi may be able to assist with a top level domain name (which
> they clearly advertise as a s
>
> No tres found another free hosting provider called tux family. I will work
> on applying tomorrow
>
Jonathan, gandi may be able to assist with a top level domain name (which
they clearly advertise as a service they offer).
I'd much rather we write them off for lack of response than the fact th
No tres found another free hosting provider called tux family. I will work
on applying tomorrow
On 12 May 2014 16:54, "Lukas W." wrote:
> Would you mind pasting the conversation in here so that we can see what's
> going on?
>
>
> 2014-05-12 16:51 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Aquilina :
>
>> I got an answer
@musicbear,
Can you please open an issue regarding the LFO controller on the GitHub bug
tracker?
-Tres
- tres.finocchi...@gmail.com
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Vesa wrote:
> On 05/16/2014 04:54 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:
> > @Vesa,
> >
> > Since musicbear's request may be off-topic, c
On 05/16/2014 04:54 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:
> @Vesa,
>
> Since musicbear's request may be off-topic, can/should we open a bug
> report on the LFO controller or would you rather make mental note and
> address it at the same time?
>
Go ahead and open an issue, I have lots on my plate and I can't
Any news on this?
2014-05-12 16:55 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Aquilina :
> Right now there is nothing as support just told me to contact another
> email address which I am working on.
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Lukas W. wrote:
>
>> Would you mind pasting the conversation in here so that we ca
On 05/16/2014 01:01 PM, musikbear wrote:
> woo - this is serious interesting. Perhaps this also could make lmms able to
> use the LFO speed in sweeps! (one of the best sweep sounds! Now, any atempt
> to automate SPD, creates horrible artefacts.
That's probably a separate problem - I suspect that
On 05/16/2014 12:46 PM, Raine M. Ekman wrote:
> Citerar Vesa :
>> Part of the problem is no
>> sample-exactness in playback, but part is because the step size prevents
>> gradual change so that even with sample-exactness the problem still
>> exists. Solving this would make peak/LFO controllers much
woo - this is serious interesting. Perhaps this also could make lmms able to
use the LFO speed in sweeps! (one of the best sweep sounds! Now, any atempt
to automate SPD, creates horrible artefacts. That could originate from that
problem.) Whitch model.. I fear that there are pro and cons for all,
Citerar Vesa :
> Part of the problem is no
> sample-exactness in playback, but part is because the step size prevents
> gradual change so that even with sample-exactness the problem still
> exists. Solving this would make peak/LFO controllers much more useful
> and flexible, as you could connect th
15 matches
Mail list logo
