Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

I have now created the branch "models" on the main repository, and added an initial commit which contains all my sample-exact model & controller work. https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/commits/models Everyone is welcome to try it out, and also contribute in developing it.

Re: [LMMS-devel] stable-0.4-new-fx-mixer merged

Comparing layers in gimp with FX channels in LMMS is a bad comparison IMO. The logo for the mixer illustrates a bunch of sliders, and it is well deserved because it is what people expect in the physical world of mixers and it is what they are used to in the digital world of mixers. Unless there i

[LMMS-devel] Stacking bug

There seems to be a bug with note stacking - the base note is silent. Is anyone else noticing this? Set note stacking to major, play a C - you should get C-E-G but you only get E-G. Could be just me or some changes I've made in this branch causing some weird effect, so I want to be sure before ma

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

This is topic has gone slightly off track, but if it helps, my tracks broke significantly from 0.4 to 1.0. The one that made it on the LMMS Artists CD had to be remastered and re-leveled prior to sending to Uros and I still don't think it sounds right. I'm fine with this because to be progressiv

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

I'm not really sure what to do with the peak controller, though. It seems like it's not actually a "peak" controller - looking at the codebase, it actually takes the RMS of each period of audio, then updates the controller from that. I have a feeling it's written this way to overcome earlier limit

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

On 05/19/2014 10:26 PM, Vesa wrote: > On 05/19/2014 10:06 PM, Vesa wrote: >> To elaborate, I have this working already in such a way that existing, >> non-sample-exact models (ie. all of them) still work as they always >> have, even with controllers - it's just the new sample-exact >> buffer-passin

Re: [LMMS-devel] stable-0.4-new-fx-mixer merged

On 05/19/2014 11:59 PM, Stian Jørgensrud wrote: > > > > Are the empty spaces in the new FX mixer (1.0.2) planned to be removed? As I > see it on my screen there are left unnecessary space at the very bott

Re: [LMMS-devel] stable-0.4-new-fx-mixer merged

This is one of the 1.1 items I wanted to bring up. Thanks for mentioning and +1. -- "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Ge

Re: [LMMS-devel] stable-0.4-new-fx-mixer merged

Are the empty spaces in the new FX mixer (1.0.2) planned to be removed? As I see it on my screen there are left unnecessary space at the very bottom. And when you only have master channel there is space

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

> > I can't really say anything about that... ...Well, I'm probably totally > useless in that regard, but I hope you'll find the help you need. > Fair enough, but remember that I am willing to provide an environment for someone who can help. The three bugs preventing me from recommending 1.x.x on

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

On 05/19/2014 11:02 PM, Tobias Doerffel wrote: > Hi, > > 2014-05-19 21:57 GMT+02:00 Vesa : >> Ok, can you create the branch then - I have some code to put in there... > you should be able to do that yourself by directly pushing your new > branch to the LMMS repository :-) > Oh, right - I forgot I

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

Hi, 2014-05-19 21:57 GMT+02:00 Vesa : > Ok, can you create the branch then - I have some code to put in there... you should be able to do that yourself by directly pushing your new branch to the LMMS repository :-) Toby ---

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

On 05/19/2014 10:54 PM, Tobias Doerffel wrote: > 2014-05-19 21:06 GMT+02:00 Vesa : >> In that case, should we maybe create a separate branch for it, so it'd >> be possible to collaborate on this? > Yes definitely - we generally should more work on topic branches so > they can mature independently w

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

2014-05-19 21:06 GMT+02:00 Vesa : > In that case, should we maybe create a separate branch for it, so it'd > be possible to collaborate on this? Yes definitely - we generally should more work on topic branches so they can mature independently without delaying pull requests until master is open aga

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

On 05/19/2014 10:44 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > In all seriousness, you and Jonathan are probably about the only > ones in here who have access to Macs, you're the ones familiar > with them, so it kind of falls on you to get these Mac-specific > bugs fixed... It's just very hard

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

> > You mean the elephant that has been merged in the master branch and > working perfectly fine for over a month now? > Yes, that elephant. -- "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE Instant

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

On 05/19/2014 10:51 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > .. oh and undo. Le'ts not forget that elephant in the room. :) You mean the elephant that has been merged in the master branch and working perfectly fine for over a month now? ---

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

> > I'd like to assign resources to something that does. > .. oh and undo. Le'ts not forget that elephant in the room. :) -- "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE Instantly run your Seleni

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

> > In all seriousness, you and Jonathan are probably about the only ones > in here who have access to Macs, you're the ones familiar with them, so > it kind of falls on you to get these Mac-specific bugs fixed... It's > just very hard for anyone who doesn't know about Macs and doesn't own one > to

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

On 05/19/2014 10:06 PM, Vesa wrote: > To elaborate, I have this working already in such a way that existing, > non-sample-exact models (ie. all of them) still work as they always > have, even with controllers - it's just the new sample-exact > buffer-passing methods that are still causing problems.

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

On 05/19/2014 09:59 PM, Tobias Doerffel wrote: > 2014-05-19 20:45 GMT+02:00 Vesa : >> Ones that are still uncertain: >> - the sample-exact models and the new buffer-passing architecture - I've >> been working on it today locally, and I've got most of the structures in >> place, partially rewrote th

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

2014-05-19 20:45 GMT+02:00 Vesa : > Ones that are still uncertain: > - the sample-exact models and the new buffer-passing architecture - I've > been working on it today locally, and I've got most of the structures in > place, partially rewrote the LFO controller while I was at it, I'm just > runnin

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

On 05/19/2014 07:19 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > Ok, so the plan is to refine those features already committed? > > The reason I ask is because I would like the team to offer official > OSX download, but I don't feel comfortable with the stability until a > few bugs are fixed. Well, send me a m

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

014-05-19 18:18 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Aquilina : > @toby I think a valid quesiton here would be at what point will we branch > master for 1.1 stabilization? We will see. Maybe in one or two weeks. In the end it doesn't make any difference, we have to stabilize the code base in either case. At the sim

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

> > We already have a sort of unofficial feature freeze. Large new features > won't be merged anymore until we branch out 1.1 to its own branch. > Smaller new features that aren't likely to cause instability - such as > your vst/sf2 commit - can still get in... Ok, so the plan is to refine those

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

@toby I think a valid quesiton here would be at what point will we branch master for 1.1 stabilization? On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Vesa wrote: > On 05/19/2014 07:14 PM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > > Shouldnt we branch the changes after merging 1.0 bug fixes to master > > that way we dont e

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

On 05/19/2014 07:14 PM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > Shouldnt we branch the changes after merging 1.0 bug fixes to master > that way we dont end up with a bottle neck of new features waiting to > be merged that would probably need to be rebased due to master > diverging too much? > We're periodicall

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

Shouldnt we branch the changes after merging 1.0 bug fixes to master that way we dont end up with a bottle neck of new features waiting to be merged that would probably need to be rebased due to master diverging too much? On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Vesa wrote: > On 05/19/2014 06:09 PM, Tr

Re: [LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

On 05/19/2014 06:09 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > I've observed quite a few changes to master for our 1.1 release. > > Should the project consider focusing stability on a few major > milestone features? We already have a sort of unofficial feature freeze. Large new features won't be merged anymore

[LMMS-devel] Milestones for 1.1 release

I've observed quite a few changes to master for our 1.1 release. Should the project consider focusing stability on a few major milestone features? I have a list of items in my head but before rattling them off, I'd like to understand a bit better how the "funneling effect" will happen as we get c

Re: [LMMS-devel] Wiki revival

I maintain a wiki for another project and have found some benefit in keeping the old pages around for aforementioned reasons, but if this is done, it is very important to mark as old and link to the new pages. -Tres - tres.finocchi...@gmail.com On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Jonathan Aquil