On 09/22/2014 04:26 AM, Bill Y. wrote:
> The only counter point I could see is if some one wanted to implement
> math interactions between automation tracks. AKA you create a "wave"
> in one automation track and wanted it to add to or subtract from
> another automation tracks "wave" to create a ble
The only counter point I could see is if some one wanted to implement math
interactions between automation tracks. AKA you create a "wave" in one
automation track and wanted it to add to or subtract from another
automation tracks "wave" to create a blend of the two. Currently new
automation overrid
Toby, have you had any progress tracking down the regression? I've been
too busy with school & things to get any coding done...
--
Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/
I would give you the link to lmms on github, but you already know how that
link goes? The latest stable is stable-1.1 on github.
--
View this message in context:
http://linux-multimedia-studio-lmms.996328.n3.nabble.com/Latest-source-code-tp10427p10430.html
Sent from the lmms-devel mailing list
So, the only thing you are saying is that it is easier and more logical this
way, and I agree, it is. Go ahead and do it :) Cause consistency is the
keyword here? I can't see how this will solve any bugs?
diiz wrote
> Ok, so here's again something I've been thinking about lately. And
> which, aga
Tres Finocchiaro wrote
> I don't think I've done that before. :)
> tinfo/lmms-devel
And if you do, you will be 'midly' confused one month down the road, so
remember to make a note about it :p
--
View this message in context:
http://linux-multimedia-studio-lmms.996328.n3.nabble.com/Let-s-reth
