On 25/03/2023 21:32, mark_at_yahoo via Rosegarden-user wrote:
On 3/25/23 12:00 PM, Lorenzo Sutton wrote:
I wasn't aware of a rosegarden fork. Unfortunately I wasn't able to
build it on Manjaro (I tried the same procedure as for Rosegarden
latest git).
Thanks for the feedback (as disappointing as it is to hear). If you feel
inspired to do so, could you file an issue at the GitHub page, with the
build errors and your Qt/C++ versions if possible? I don't think I've
used any Qt/C++ APIs beyond those in official Rosegarden but maybe
something snuck in.
Done: https://github.com/thanks4opensource/rosegarden-fork/issues/1
As mainly a *user* I tend to disagree with the 'speculation' in the
README file [0] where it says:
'changes to Rosegarden's user interface and/or workflow (beyond the
most trivial) are unlikely to be approved based on a belief that a
large user base exists, the majority of whom would not accept such
changes regardless of whether they represent improvements or not.'
I appreciate your opinion and wish I could agree ("re-agree"??) with
you. But I stand by the facts I cited in my post and elsewhere. Take a
look at what happened when Ted made a much-needed change to "dark mode"
a while back and received a complaint from one user that (pure
speculation again) re-cemented his commitment to a "no changes unless
reconfigurable back to the previous way" Rosegarden UI/UX.
I think the theme isssue is exactly something which is so subjective
that opinions are normal to be there... For instance because of how my
eyesight works I only use 'dark' themes for certain applications like
terminals and some text editors otherwise I use light ones because the
dark text on background helps me especially with smaller fonts /
elements. So as said, subjectivity and 'improvement' are key. BTW I
think you can now have a dark theme if you like (and I think it's the
default one, as dark themes are very popular these days).
I think there's always interesting discussions on new features (e.g.
see the ones about 'new' looping mode), and the concept of
'improvement' is often subjective ;-)
You're absolutely right about the subjectivity. But at some point you
just have to bite the bullet and go for it.
- Visual distinction between vertical lines indicating measures,
beats, and inter-beat grid timing.
This one would be useful when entering in 16ths (or even 8ths) e.g.
drums or even synth arpeggios.
Exactly. Many more such examples, both documented and
implicit/discoverable. I'd love to get your opinions if and when you're
able to build the code.
Sure. I think it would be nice to then have these feed back into
Rosegarden. My *user* experience with forks is that at the end of the
day they tend to be bad for users even in much bigger projects
(OpenOffice / LibreOffice for instance).
There was (more than 10 years ago), the Open Octave project which
started as a Rosegarden 'fork' and promised great things (and I think
also fund-raised quite a bit). Unfortunately IIRC the project removed
notation which from my point of view has been a very nice cool feature
in Rosegarden. I think it was also focused on 'samples', which is
probably one of the weakest points in the whole Linux Audio / Music
ecosystem...
Anyway this is free software and it's beauty is that anyone can fork it,
so why not.
Finally, maybe IMHO further discussion of the fork should maybe be
moved to a dedicated list / place or a more general list like LAU...
Lorenzo
As I'm not able to build the fork I wonder if any screenshots /
screen-grabs exist.
Not currently, although they're one of many things I'd like to add.
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user
