On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 03:19:47PM +0200, [email protected] wrote: > I don't actually have to work on LMMS. If everyone else thinks LMMS 2.0 > is a bad idea, I can just go on to see if the qtractor guys need my > help, or something (or just concentrate on music and start coding LV2 > plugins or something).
I am sorry that my original discussion developed into this, that's totally not I wanted. > People can keep adding bandages to > the broken engine, keep on working on external features like UI and > stepping around design flaws, building up the legacy cruft... but I want > no part of that. > I understand what you mean here, and I see where you're coming from. But see, I am just a novice, entering now to work on this codebase. This is the only thing I can do now confidently and competently (I hope so). I am just trying to collaborate with what I can do, it may be not the most exciting thing on the world. I am not saying that you are forbidden to do what you want or develop the software in the same way that you were before, actually I *want* you to do this, because you're much more capable than me to diagnose bad design, UI flaws, etc... We're just trying to improve what we have today, but if you come with a bomb that'll break and invalidate everything we've done but is much, much better then it's fine, I'll be happy :-). Because my main motivation to work on this is the same as yours: LMMS is broken, LMMS *feels* broken, and it can be better than this. > However, I can't do the 2.0 transition alone. So if everyone else feels > they'd rather continue working on LMMS 1.3 and maintain backwards > compat, then that's that. I can't actually force people to accept the > idea. > > But I personally have no interest in working on LMMS 1.3. At all. > Because the way I see it, these changes that are planned for 2.0 are > necessary for making LMMS a real, professional grade music application > instead of the "semibroken toy DAW" it is currently known as - and I'm > saying this as someone who loves LMMS, it's just that if you ask someone > who's used to working with pro-audio tools to take a look at LMMS, > that's the impresstion they'll get from it in its current state. Well, I've re-read the 2.0 email you posted on November, and to be frank It's not clear how I can help. If someone makes explicit what's the roadmap do 2.0 and a definition of the product I would be very, very happy to contribute. The existence of 1.3 does not invalidate the progress to 2.0 as I see though. It's just a release to 1.2, what's the problem with that? The only possibility I see it's that it touches on something that's been a source of frustration to you: the absence of developers who can help deliver in a short amount of time a really amazing and not broken DAW. I am doing what I can for now, taking bigger steps toward bigger features, understanding the current design, trying to figure out how things are done, etc. ======================================================================== I just started this thread because I wanted to move forward to small release steps, but if this is a big issue, then it's fine. If staying into 1.2 until you are able to develop and show us the big improvements you are devising for 2.0 so that we also can work on it, then it's fine as well. I hope you understand that I am just trying to help, and if I am hurting more than helping, please let me know so that I can help in a different, better way. I guess I am used to really fast-paced projects, with small releases and etc, so when I saw that we have LV2 plans from the middle of this year but nothing delivered, 2.0 plans and no visible progress. Well, that this is probably not going in that direction for now. It's possible though that we just need to be patient, and if that's the case it's fine by me. Also, working on a free software and receiving feedbacks from people like the ones you have received is annoying I know, I assume you're probably burned out from everyone saying what we should do or not, invalidating our work with just a few words and never truly helping out: etc. I just want to say that just by following the limited knowledge of LMMS evolution that I have that you've done an outstanding and great job, I thank you for that. And also, if we are doing something wrong or misoriented and it's going to hurt more than help in achieving the LMMS of our dreams, please tell us, I trust that your advice will be of utmost importance. Thanks for everything! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ LMMS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
