Having them in requests will allow it to be kept track of and easier for me
to prioritize what needs to be done.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Tres Finocchiaro <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Tobias Doerffel <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 2014-04-29 16:13 GMT+02:00 Tres Finocchiaro <[email protected]>:
>> > These ideas aren't **all** relevant to LSP2. They should instead be
>> in an LMMS
>> > enhancement request.
>>
>> They are because you need to have a future API in mind that we can use
>> in LMMS. Hacking in web resources later is more work (I experienced
>> that a few years ago with the current LSP).
>
>
> Agreed. I should have put more emphasis on the word "ALL". These emails
> go into quite a bit of design detail about the LMMS interface. I'd just
> hate for ALL of these concerns to be filed away in an LSP2 request.
>
>
>
--
Jonathan Aquilina
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get
unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
_______________________________________________
LMMS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
