On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Albert Santoni <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 1-Jan-09, at 4:40 AM, Tyson Henning wrote: >> >> So why not a scratch-built Mixxx 2? Or even a different program >> entirely? I think that it would make the inclusion of some of the more >> advanced planned/in-pipeline features like the timeline and scripting >> stuff more central to the design, rather than tacked-on hacks. >> > > I'm in favour of this for after our next release, but we'll all have > to have some serious discussions before any decisions are made. > >> And if it's documented, thoroughly thought out and employs experience >> from the current codebase, it may not be such a huge pain for the next >> people to pick it up. >> >> Egh, I'm too cynical, and quite possibly just an asshole, > > Your words, not mine :) No, but seriously, thank you for suggesting > Mixxx 2 or something new. I think you've brought this up at a very > good time, and I think the next few months will be interesting. >
I am highly in favour of working on a from-scratch Mixxx 2. There are a lot of itches I'd like to scratch with Mixxx but I've been been held up by being afraid of learning the codebase (and the continual breakage of all my systems :( ). The core mixing functionality is "1) input left, right, 2) output left+right/2, 3) goto 1", and I know there's EQs and filters and midi controls that complicate things but it seems like it shouldn't be as complicated as it is. -Nick ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Mixxx-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mixxx-devel
