I think we're nearing in on a 1.2 feature freeze...
- The 1.1 changes need to be synced up to 1.2. Lukas/Vesa can you help
with this?
- I've bumped all of the remaining 1.1 bugs to 1.2 milestone (since
there doesn't seem to be any movement on them)
- I've also taken the liberty to bump/consolidate some bug reports to
help narrow our 1.2 efforts.
There are 41 open bugs reports/enhancements
<https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A1.2.0>
still on our 1.2 milestone. If you see one that you feel is unreasonable
for the 1.2 milestone, please post a comment and we can decide to bump it.
If you see one you can fix, please post a comment too.
-Tres
- [email protected]
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Tres Finocchiaro <
[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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'd like to point out that the people working on this "legacy cruft" are
> critical to the success of 2.0 as well. Also, many of these fixes are
> stepping around design flaws but many are fixes that will make it into 2.0.
>
> I understand the point, but we need to be careful not to minimize the
> contributions on either side of the 2.0 fence. We have a lot of
> progressive changes that have happened that will benefit both branches.
>
> If we were to relate this to a bee colony, we'd be observing a "waggle
> dance". This "waggle" is the hope of something better and more
> accommodating elsewhere. This hope eventually turns into a promise once
> everyone agrees but it can't be forced. It is a convincing that happens
> over time.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7ijI-g4jHg
>
> If 1.x is our current beehive and 2.x is our future beehive, we still have
> some waggle dancing to do. :)
>
> In history, many projects have started a drastic rewrite and stopped,
> include in the past with LMMS itself where the master branch and the 0.4
> branch drifted too far apart. 0.4 won. It wasn't out of spite either. It
> is just how it happened. For example, the code for the new mixer was old
> master code from the 0.4 days (IIRC). It wasn't until 1.1 was released
> when the mixer code finally made it in and was considered stable (BTW, it's
> not stable, it has many bugs which have started even further debate).
>
> What I see now is very little waggle dancing happening for 2.x and no one
> should take that personally nor take sides. Trusting change is a natural
> progression and I think we're doing damn well on that front. If Vesa needs
> help we may need him to pinpoint some places that would immediately benefit
> 2.x and have a few people take a look and start waggling themselves. :)
>
> -Tres
>
> - [email protected]
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Amadeus Folego <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
