agreed On Sun, 2014-11-23 at 15:22 -0500, Frederick Gleason wrote:
> > That’s certainly a factor, but not the primary one in my view. Unix design > history has a very strong tradition of building tools that focus on doing one > thing well and then allowing those tools to interoperate, rather than monster > monoliths that try to be all things to all people. This preference turns out > to have all kinds of side benefits, not the least being code with lower > defect rates (bugs) because it allows global code complexity to be held to a > minimum. This is a tradition that I take very seriously when extending > Rivendell. Thus, the first question I ask when looking to add any particular > feature is “does it *have* to be in Rivendell, or is there another place in > the toolchain where this would be better implemented”? I think the answer in > this case is clear: pitch alteration belongs in the production room, not the > air chain. > _______________________________________________ Rivendell-dev mailing list Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org http://caspian.paravelsystems.com/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
