Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

We will be releasing 1.2.0-RC2 soon. This is what needs to be done before the next release candidate: - Iron out bugs with new theme (#2892 , #2867 or we'll revert to the classic theme) - Merge rem

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

> > Sorry, isn't the multitap echo a new effect? If yes, it's missing from the > change logs Added. Thanks. - tres.finocchi...@gmail.com On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Roberto Giaconia wrote: > Sorry, isn't the multitap echo a new effect? If yes, it's missing from the > change logs > > btw

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

Sorry, isn't the multitap echo a new effect? If yes, it's missing from the change logs btw, great work, everyone, the program is already pretty fine! I did a 1 hour recorded session, and it only crashed 3 times on windows. Since recovery files are working, I didn't lose anything. And I love the b

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

> > I have a pending PR since October 2 2015 for #2145 that was never merged > to master. Thanks we'll take a look https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/pull/2423. -- Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Perf

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

Hi Tres, I have a pending PR since October 2 2015 for #2145 that was never merged to master. It is harmless and so few lines of code it can be reverted easily anytime if required. I do not know if it was forgotten or felled in a black hole. I merge it over and over in my own master branch ever

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

#2315 is closed so I've released RC1 to get some early feedback going. - We still need to branch off to a stable-1.2 very soon. - Umcaruje/softrabbit/zonkmachine/etc can you help review the outstanding PRs and decide what can go into 1.2 and what has to wait. - The release notes are he

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

Most critical bugs have been fixed (I do see a few being reopened or still in progress). Are we in good shape to start the RC process? Creating an RC1 build is as simple as setting the version in CMakeLists.txt

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

Quoting Tres Finocchiaro : > 1.2 isn't lost, just on hold... here's a reminder of what we have to look > forward to in 1.2 > Well, the MIDI export mentioned might need quite a bit of care and attention to be release

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

Quoting Tres Finocchiaro : > Our major bugs before a release candidate are: > >- *#2318* - ControllerView causes hard crash Scratch that, just merged #2456. https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/pull/2456 -- ra...@iki.fi softrabbit on #lmms --

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

Status update... We've have very minor progress since our last email, but on the bright side, #2378 (BBEditor hard crash) has been closed. (Thanks Lukas-W) Our major bugs before a release candidate are: - *#2318* - ControllerView cause

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

dk if this info can help I got a binary for win 32 at july 12. 15 *lmms-master12july15win32.exe* It is stable Unfortunate it is not version marked, but i believe it was curlydave's If at all this info can be used to anything, i will try and go back in my history and find the exact conversation -Ma

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

A status update, since it's been a couple weeks... - The master branch is *still suffering stability bugs which make it unusable for daily use.* https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Acritical+milestone%3A1.2.0 Although most people reading this email didn't

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

@Amadeus, Hi, I hope all is well. None that I am aware of were caused by you, thank you for inquiring. - tres.finocchi...@gmail.com On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Amadeus Folego wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 02:31:32PM -0400, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > So 1.2's still suffering from ser

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 02:31:32PM -0400, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > So 1.2's still suffering from serious stability issues. > > These stability issues are causing the delay of a release candidate (e.g. > 1.2.0 > RC1) and they will continue to do so until we can fix them. > > • Some of these st

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

So 1.2's still suffering from serious stability issues. These stability issues are causing the delay of a release candidate (e.g. 1.2.0 RC1) and they will continue to do so until we can fix them. - Some of these stability issues were introduced by developers who are no longer active on the

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

> > > Looks to me like that's just the Ukrainian translation. It's the only > thing that's happened in stable-1.1 since it was merged into master in > June. Thanks! A similar commit for Aug 14th appears in master (3 d

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

Quoting Tres Finocchiaro : >- Once ~38 items are decided, we need to merge forward any 1.1. bugfixes >to master that never made it in. Looks to me like that's just the Ukrainian translation. It's the only thing that's happened in stable-1.1 since it was merged into master in June. --

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

*Update:* *We need to stabilize the master branch prior to an RC1 release. Here's the most recent status:* - We have 10 (previously 24) pull requests that need to be decided if they go in prior to 1.2 or in the next release. - *The most critical of the bugs currently is #2378, which is

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

> > New right-click-menu-option on any semitone to mark all notes on this > semitone Done, thanks. * Marking Piano Roll semitones marks on all octaves (#2193) In addition, I'd like to bring some attention to some overlooked bugs... https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/2023 > https://github.

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

I think there is many more features already implemented in current Master, but are those the one you suggest should not be in the RC? -Just to mention one. / *Piano-roll New right-click-menu-option on any semitone to mark all notes on this semitone/ -Or is that just one that was forgotten in this

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

@midi-pascal, please bump the bug report or PR and an admin will add it to the listing. I believe the latest Japanese translations missed the list too. Catch any more, just let us know. --

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

Not to be pretentious but my contribution to enhance the Lmms translation in the code and improve the French translation does not show up in the Languages/Locale part of the Features and fixes. I know I am not a regular contributor but this has been a not-so-easy job ;-) On 15-09-13 11:46 AM,

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

Tres Having spent some time today reading through our open pull requests, we appear to have a growing list, many have requests for contributors to make changes, and the are a few with unconcluded conversations. I recently listened to a blender podcast, where they spoke of a similar situation. The

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

This isn't a wish list, this is a roadmap to a stable-1.2. "Rock solid sound engine" is a sensationally sounding concept (no pun intended) but is an kind way to say performance sucks... We know this. The 1.2 branch has seen help from a fresh set of talented, busy and driven developers -- ones tha

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

As a Hardcore LMMS user I would love to see (hear) performance improvements. Sure gui is nice, sure ux is important. But having a rock solid sound engine is top priority. And I think it's time to be able to do some audio editing in LMMS. Like eg Ardour. But that's just my opinion :) Verzonden d

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

Just my initial thoughts https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/milestones/1.2.0 Of the 29 open issues marked for 1.2 , 11 are feature feature requests, What are opinions on these being moved to 1.3? There are a lot of ux/gui issues also on the list. At present there is a lot of progress in this area. We c

[LMMS-devel] Roadmap to 1.2

There have been some rumblings of "when will 1.2 be released?" This is a valid question as our initial goal -- to have Zyn 2.5 ready for the 1.2 -- release put us behind a bit more than expected and has allowed some new features to make it in (good, bad or indifferent). The short answer is: We c

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

We could also make it as a customizable option where a user can switch it on or off On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:59 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 9 March 2014 21:58, David Gerard wrote: > > On 9 March 2014 21:27, Tobias Doerffel > wrote: > > >> for the time being I would not provide in-app upgrad

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On 9 March 2014 21:58, David Gerard wrote: > On 9 March 2014 21:27, Tobias Doerffel wrote: >> for the time being I would not provide in-app upgrade mechanisms >> (especially as they're very platform-specific and will introduce lots >> of extra problems like doing the UAC stuff on Windows etc.).

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On 9 March 2014 21:27, Tobias Doerffel wrote: > for the time being I would not provide in-app upgrade mechanisms > (especially as they're very platform-specific and will introduce lots > of extra problems like doing the UAC stuff on Windows etc.). What we > can do is to add a check which retrieve

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

+1 here for that toby :) I think this is essential to have especially if we are no longer going to support older releases. On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Tobias Doerffel wrote: > Hi, > > for the time being I would not provide in-app upgrade mechanisms > (especially as they're very platform-spe

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

Hi, for the time being I would not provide in-app upgrade mechanisms (especially as they're very platform-specific and will introduce lots of extra problems like doing the UAC stuff on Windows etc.). What we can do is to add a check which retrieves current-version.txt from a server from time to ti

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

Hosting I can provide for the website that is no problem and free of charge. but hosting the installers might be an issue for me. I guess that can be left on sourceforge unless we can put them elsewhere. On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > are you offering to [buy it]? > >

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

> > are you offering to [buy it]? Yes I've spoken with my business partner (who is a Linux-only user) and we agreed to sponsor this. What happens if we lose it in the future? We don't. We put a process in place that allows transfer of ownership and alerts us if the bill isn't getting paid. Wha

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

Stian they are worried about application integrity. On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Stian Jørgensrud wrote: > What are you two discussing here, really? I don't understand. > > > diiz wrote > > On 03/08/2014 04:03 AM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > >> > >> When the link is embedded in our softwar

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

What are you two discussing here, really? I don't understand. diiz wrote > On 03/08/2014 04:03 AM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: >> >> When the link is embedded in our software, the users will get the >> impression that we guarantee the viability of that link. >> >> >> Then let's guarantee it.

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

They all use md5 checksums. Is there a way if people are worried of using a more secure encryption algorithm such as SHA256 or SHA 512? On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 10:42 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 8 March 2014 06:29, Vesa wrote: > > > So don't you tell me that it's impossible to guarantee securit

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On 8 March 2014 06:29, Vesa wrote: > So don't you tell me that it's impossible to guarantee security. It's not. > It's just a matter of putting some effort to it. > The question is, is this feature worth that effort. The first rule of crypto implementation is "never roll your own". So the quest

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On 03/08/2014 04:03 AM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > When the link is embedded in our software, the users will get the > impression that we guarantee the viability of that link. > > > Then let's guarantee it. We've all "been there" in terms of watching > free services die off (such as the h

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

I have a contact that can provide us with free google apps accounts through his education account plus purchase the domain for us On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 3:03 AM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > When the link is embedded in our software, the users will get the >> impression that we guarantee the viabi

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

> > When the link is embedded in our software, the users will get the > impression that we guarantee the viability of that link. > Then let's guarantee it. We've all "been there" in terms of watching free services die off (such as the hypothetical SourceForge unavailability), so lets buy the doma

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

David you are wrong it does check. What it does is places a download looking icon where if clicked will let you know what version is out and provides a link. This would apply to windows and mac mostly. On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:37 PM, David Gerard wrote: > So what do other projects do? > > Fir

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

Could we generate a pgp key for each release and have it be verified upon installation or by the user after download? On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 1:15 AM, Vesa wrote: > On 03/07/2014 10:33 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > There is no centralized keysigning authority that we could trust. > > Speak

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On 03/07/2014 10:33 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > There is no centralized keysigning authority that we could trust. > > Speak for yourself please. > This is what OCSP and CRL is for. Nearly every secure communication > one uses to the web uses trusted certificate. Too expensive? Valid > c

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

So what do other projects do? Firefox has a button you can press to check for upgrades. It *also* checks itself for new versions, but a browser is a rather more threat-ridden environment than a music application. LibreOffice doesn't check at all, AFAIK. Perhaps a check box "do you want this app

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

Very good after my opinion. Might as well add two links more? Help --> Forum Something --> lsp Tres Finocchiaro wrote > Help --> Report a bug --> Opens browser to github/lmms > Help --> Check for updates --> Checks for new version -- View this message in context: http://linux-multimedia-st

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

> > There is no centralized keysigning authority that we could trust. Speak for yourself please. This is what OCSP and CRL is for. Nearly every secure communication one uses to the web uses trusted certificate. Too expensive? Valid concern. Can't trust them? I'd argue we already do. > Your a

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On 03/07/2014 05:42 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > that is must be absolutely secure. No compromises, no excuses, it > MUST be secure: we can't just put a server address there that LMMS > checks - it must be future proof (what if our server address > changes? well, the users will

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

Help --> Report a bug --> Opens browser to github/lmms Help --> Check for updates --> Checks for new version Pseudo code: if (http://lmms.sourceforge.net/latest_version.txt != getVersion()) { alert("A new version is available, please download it here: http://lmms.sourceforget.net";); }

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

I do like the idea of the LED, and I think that is a good way to go. I think also we will need to then get in the habit if someone reports a bug to have them try against the newest release to see if it still exists. On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Bill Y. wrote: > My feeling is that having a di

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

My feeling is that having a direct download link inside of LMMS is a bad idea because it forces all the issue Vesa mentioned on us, several of which are near impossible to guarantee at this point. My thought was in the paths there can be a user definable url that points to a simple version number.

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

> > that is must be absolutely secure. No compromises, no excuses, it MUST > be secure: we can't just put a server address there that LMMS checks - it > must be future proof (what if our server address changes? well, the users > will get the new one in the next update... oh wait), so there must be

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

I really like this suggestion Bill. What do the rest of you think? On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Bill Y. wrote: > How about a little LED graphic in a corner that lights up when there is an > update, and the user has the option to set it's brightness level? It could > have a user definable di

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

You guys are aware that we are going to get a massive amount of bugs for a version that we are not going to continue supporting when something new is released. On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Israel wrote: > Absolutely!!! That is so right on Vesa! > I'm so glad you are around to think of thing

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

Then what you are saying Vesa is that we need to support versions, the suggestion makes it easier to ensure people are aware of a new version and if we are going to do rolling releases so to speak we will need to suggest to people to upgrade to a new version to ensure bugs they see do not occur in

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

Absolutely!!! That is so right on Vesa! I'm so glad you are around to think of things like that! Keep up your awesome work! On 03/06/2014 10:36 PM, Vesa wrote: > On 03/07/2014 02:44 AM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: >> I personally am spilt 50/50 in terms of a non-intrusive upgrade >> indicator, but

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On 03/07/2014 02:44 AM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > I personally am spilt 50/50 in terms of a non-intrusive upgrade > indicator, but it would have to get coded and Vesa seems mostly > against it. > > Well, I'm not the only coder here (I'm not much of a coder anyway), and my word isn't the law on the

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

I personally am spilt 50/50 in terms of a non-intrusive upgrade indicator, but it would have to get coded and Vesa seems mostly against it. -Tres - tres.finocchi...@gmail.com On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Bill Y. wrote: > How about a little LED graphic in a corner that lights up when there

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

How about a little LED graphic in a corner that lights up when there is an update, and the user has the option to set it's brightness level? It could have a user definable dimmer so it can be as unintrusive as a user wants. On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > On Mar 6, 2

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On Mar 6, 2014 5:07 PM, "Stian Jørgensrud" wrote: > > Use HTML iframe tag? > Yes, sort of but making the content more appropriate. iFrame would just put the mess of information that's already mostly irrelevant to installing onto our page. Simply putting the ppa dropdown with command line I woul

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

Use HTML iframe tag? Tres Finocchiaro wrote > I would be a fan of providing something like this on our downloads > section. > > The way launchpad displays this (scrolling way down, clicking the > triangle, > clicking the version) sort of hides it away. > > Is anyone aware if launchpad has a way

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

Hmm. I find pop ups very useful most times. What if you made it "a new version is available" like an alert message (hoovering box in a corner) you didn't have to click ok? It just fades out itself. That would be fine for everyone, at least if it only popped up once, and then didn't bother you again

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

Dont forget that we will have random bug fix releases in between On 4 Mar 2014 16:59, "Israel" wrote: > On 03/04/2014 09:58 AM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > > Not even providing a notification and link to where to download the new > version's installer? > > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Vesa

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On 03/04/2014 09:58 AM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: Not even providing a notification and link to where to download the new version's installer? On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Vesa > wrote: On 03/04/2014 04:10 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > Online updater are a ni

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

I would be a fan of providing something like this on our downloads section. The way launchpad displays this (scrolling way down, clicking the triangle, clicking the version) sort of hides it away. Is anyone aware if launchpad has a way to embed this information onto our own page? If not, can we

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On 03/04/2014 05:58 PM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > Not even providing a notification and link to where to download the > new version's installer? > I don't like the idea. On Linux it's entirely pointless, and even on windows it probably just amounts to an annoyance - no one likes popups. People wh

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On 03/04/2014 06:04 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > In Linux we already have that, it's called the package manager > > > It's been a while since I installed LMMS from an official mirror, but > last I remember it is very outdated. To Jonathan's point, if were > were to provide updates to these

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

It would be great to get LMMS onto mac that is for sure. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > That is where Mac excels IMHO. Just drag the app into applications and >> that is that. Can have all the versions you want installed side by side. >> > > Yes. There was a technol

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On linux the debs can go into a ppa on launchpad and then they are automatically updated on the systems of people who use the ppa On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > In Linux we already have that, it's called the package manager >> > > It's been a while since I installed

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

> In Linux we already have that, it's called the package manager > It's been a while since I installed LMMS from an official mirror, but last I remember it is very outdated. To Jonathan's point, if were were to provide updates to these users, is it at the mercy of Ubuntu? Would we be better off

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

Not even providing a notification and link to where to download the new version's installer? On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Vesa wrote: > On 03/04/2014 04:10 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > Online updater are a nice to have, but probably not worth the effort, > > would you agree? > > > > In Li

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On 03/04/2014 04:10 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > Online updater are a nice to have, but probably not worth the effort, > would you agree? > In Linux we already have that, it's called the package manager, and in Windows it's not worth the effort. --

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

> > That is where Mac excels IMHO. Just drag the app into applications and > that is that. Can have all the versions you want installed side by side. > Yes. There was a technology called "Click-And-Run" created by Lindows/Linspire rumored to make it to Ubuntu which would have offered this type of

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

That is where Mac excels IMHO. Just drag the app into applications and that is that. Can have all the versions you want installed side by side. Would it be possible to have multiple versions installed for testing purposes On 4 Mar 2014 15:33, "Tres Finocchiaro" wrote: > Can one install multiple

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

> > Can one install multiple releases? I think as well the installer should > ask if you want to do a side by side install or remove the old version > I think this depends on your OS, but generally speaking, taking the default installation approach, files will be overridden. >From a Windows perspe

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

Very valid points. I like going the route of libreoffice and virtual box. Libre office provides an icon which opens a dialogue box saying hey here is a new version that can be downloaded and ass well provides a link to the download. Can one install multiple releases? I think as well the installer

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

I thought you were going in this direction... :) I see this a lot for application like Chrome or Firefox, but they usually don't work on Linux due to properly implemented security on the installation location (Windows has improved on this over the years, but it's still rubbish). Software like Gim

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

The issue is that you need to download an installer each time. With an online mechanism one just says yes to update lmms it will auto download the installer to a temp location then removed after the updated installation is complete. On 4 Mar 2014 14:50, "Tres Finocchiaro" wrote: > We probably cou

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

> > We probably could release even more frequently especially if there is a > critical bug. But what worries me is we have no online type of update > mechanism > What do you mean by this? -- Subversion Kills Productivity. G

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

We probably could release even more frequently especially if there is a critical bug. But what worries me is we have no online type of update mechanism. On 4 Mar 2014 13:28, "Tobias Doerffel" wrote: > That is if you follow the development / stable branches principle. I > think we decided to not f

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

That is if you follow the development / stable branches principle. I think we decided to not follow it and instead push out releases as often as possible. Even though we didn't manage it so far (probably because "1.0.0" is just something so important that we don't want to rush too much) I'm confide

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

Ok I had a feeling I had a missing part of the puzzle, but here is some food for thought and the way Libreoffice operates. They create a new branch in our case 1.0.0. Then from there everything that is currently being set for 1.1.0 would be included in 1.0.1 up to 4 or 5 then the version number g

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On 03/04/2014 12:28 AM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > > What about point releases? > > What about them? I'm going by the version scheme that was agreed on earlier. x.y.z = year.quarter.increment, where 2014 = 1, and y and z are 0-based. So as soon as we're in April, the version number bumps to 1.1.0

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

@Jon, I think what Vesa is saying is those minor point releases will be released naturally, and are not necessarily part of any particular milestones, since the bugs that affect 1.0.0 haven't been identified yet. There for it wouldn't make particular sense to set a bug fix milestone, as the criti

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On 03/03/2014 11:41 PM, Tobias Doerffel wrote: > Probably not a bad idea. I hope we have all release-critical issues > sorted out soon. 1.0.0 definitely should be released within the next 2 > weeks! > > Definitely - if we postpone it much more we're soon going to have to skip right to 1.1.0 ;) I'

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On 03/04/2014 12:40 AM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > > What I mean is point releases for bug fixing > What about them? -- Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce. With Perforce, you get

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

What I mean is point releases for bug fixing On 3 Mar 2014 22:37, "Vesa" wrote: > On 03/04/2014 12:28 AM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > > > > What about point releases? > > > > > > What about them? I'm going by the version scheme that was agreed on > earlier. > > x.y.z = year.quarter.increment, wher

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

What about point releases? On 3 Mar 2014 22:24, "Vesa" wrote: > On 03/03/2014 11:41 PM, Tobias Doerffel wrote: > > Probably not a bad idea. I hope we have all release-critical issues > > sorted out soon. 1.0.0 definitely should be released within the next 2 > > weeks! > > > > > > Definitely - if

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

Probably not a bad idea. I hope we have all release-critical issues sorted out soon. 1.0.0 definitely should be released within the next 2 weeks! Toby -- Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move t

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On 03/03/2014 10:25 PM, Vesa wrote: > On 03/03/2014 10:24 PM, Tobias Doerffel wrote: >> Added you to the "Core Developers" group - please try again. >> >> Toby > Yep, seems to be working now. > On the subject of milestones... should we just rename the next milestone to 1.1.0? Since we're already i

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On 03/03/2014 10:24 PM, Tobias Doerffel wrote: > Added you to the "Core Developers" group - please try again. > > Toby Yep, seems to be working now. -- Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

Added you to the "Core Developers" group - please try again. Toby -- Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce. With Perforce, you get hassle-free workflows. Merge that actually works.

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On 03/03/2014 10:20 PM, Tobias Doerffel wrote: > Hi, > > don't you have permissions for that already? > > Toby No, I don't seem to have. -- Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce. Wi

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

Hi, don't you have permissions for that already? Toby -- Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce. With Perforce, you get hassle-free workflows. Merge that actually works. Faster ope

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On 03/03/2014 07:03 PM, Vesa wrote: > On 03/03/2014 06:34 PM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: >> Milestones are ideal for this I think >> > They would need to be kept up-to-date. I'd be happy to assist in marking up the milestones for different issues, if someone would enable me to do so. --

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On 03/03/2014 06:34 PM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > > Milestones are ideal for this I think > They would need to be kept up-to-date. -- Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce. With Pe

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

Milestones are ideal for this I think On 3 Mar 2014 16:24, "Vesa" wrote: > On 03/03/2014 04:11 PM, Tobias Doerffel wrote: > > Would it be sufficient to use milestones at Github for this? > > > > > > I just think it'd be convenient to gather all of it in one place (not > only because it'd be somet

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

On 03/03/2014 04:11 PM, Tobias Doerffel wrote: > Would it be sufficient to use milestones at Github for this? > > I just think it'd be convenient to gather all of it in one place (not only because it'd be something we could reference when users ask "when is ___ getting implemented"), and we could

Re: [LMMS-devel] Roadmap

Would it be sufficient to use milestones at Github for this? Toby -- Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce. With Perforce, you get hassle-free workflows. Merge that actually works.

[LMMS-devel] Roadmap

Since the release of 1.0.0 is (hopefully) getting closer, I'm wondering if maybe we should compile a roadmap for future development plans. It wouldn't need to be a 100% accurate, just some kind of general estimate of what features we plan on implementing in what kind of estimated schedule. We coul

  1   2   >