FYI - 4,000 downloads from Sourceforge in the first week. ;)
-Tres
- tres.finocchi...@gmail.com
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Vesa wrote:
> On 03/27/2014 10:54 PM, Tobias Doerffel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > as we're still lacking an official announcement of LMMS 1.0.0 I'd like
> > to prepare t
On 03/30/2014 01:48 AM, midi-pascal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I an aware this part :-)
>
> My question was more about how to grab an existing open bug on git.
> Can I choose freely one I am willing to solve?
>
If you think you can fix something, I don't see why not. Read all the
existing discussion about t
Hi,
I an aware this part :-)
My question was more about how to grab an existing open bug on git.
Can I choose freely one I am willing to solve?
Regards
On 14-03-29 07:41 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:
>
> Fork the project to your own branch, then request the files are
> "pulled back in" with a pu
Fork the project to your own branch, then request the files are "pulled
back in" with a pull request.
https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/wiki/Submitting-a-patch
--
___
LMMS-devel maili
Hi lmms-devel members,
How do you manage the work on bugs?
If I was to take a bug from the list, do I just choose one that I think
I can solve, assign it to myself and work on it until it's solved and
then push a patch on git or is there a more formal way to manage the bugs?
I would like to co
Ok...
I figured I was missing something...
So are DSSI, and LV2 more like VST plugins? That might be something to
really interesting to explore more about. I am no where near the
programmer that you are yet... but perhaps one day :)
On 03/29/2014 04:41 PM, Vesa wrote:
On 03/29/2014 11:24
A manual? Great idea!
Especially written by their authors, who know what and why. Priceless!
On 29 Mar 2014 19:26, "Israel" wrote:
> On 03/29/2014 01:24 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> > On 29 March 2014 18:22, Israel wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think there is such a things as too many...
> >
> > You kn
I agree with providing a basic set of plugins. The rest are downloaded and
installed. Do we have an easy way to allow users to setup other plugins etc
On 29 Mar 2014 21:21, "Hannu Haahti" wrote:
> Perhaps we should include just a basic set of bundled plugins, and offer
> the rest as separate down
On 03/29/2014 11:24 PM, Israel wrote:
> It would be nice to make the plugins independant of LMMS to use in
> other things (like LADSPA) Run WattSyn through Guitarix to get an
> awesome moog guitar sound
> Just thoughts... feel free to disagree or point out something I am
> missing :)
Well LA
On 03/29/2014 04:06 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:
Im not advocating a new package. These should be easily
compileable on linux and mac and on Windows easily importable into
the program
This depends on your definition of "easy".
SoundFonts and Win32 VSTs are easy from the perspective
Thanks again Toby. That introduces a new error (assuming I didn't make a
typo)
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/6345473/2559693/6e69c3a4-b787-11e3-9174-7c972cdb4e91.png
In the mean time, I noticed this message exists on Ubuntu as well so it may
be something else causing this lockup. I
Perhaps we should include just a basic set of bundled plugins, and offer
the rest as separate downloads.
Another thing: as many Linux distros have their own packages for the
various LADSPA sets, LMMS could do a similar thing with the LADSPA plugins
on Windows.
Then there could always be the optio
>
> Im not advocating a new package. These should be easily compileable on
> linux and mac and on Windows easily importable into the program
>
This depends on your definition of "easy".
SoundFonts and Win32 VSTs are easy from the perspective you get a music
instrument that works on Windows and Lin
On 03/29/2014 10:42 PM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
>
> I agree with providing a basic set of plugins.
>
Well, there's one thing we're all forgetting here (except me, because
I'm saying it now).
Lots of people like LMMS because it offers the best possibilities for
collaboration. Users can expect tha
Im not advocating a new package. These should be easily compileable on
linux and mac and on Windows easily importable into the program
On 29 Mar 2014 21:52, "Tres Finocchiaro" wrote:
>
> On Mar 29, 2014 4:21 PM, "Hannu Haahti" wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps we should include just a basic set of bundled
On Mar 29, 2014 4:21 PM, "Hannu Haahti" wrote:
>
> Perhaps we should include just a basic set of bundled plugins, and offer
the rest as separate downloads.
So on top of offering pre-built binaries for the application (which we are
already behind on for Linux) you want the same for plugins? I don
Installing them separately makes most sense when dozens of separate
projects are implementing and maintaining their own, such as with Pidgin.
What really makes these instruments plugins valuable to our community is
the sounds they can make, and that usually means a good preset collection.
I don'
Jonathan, please read at least the first paragraphs of each of those pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_web_page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_web_page
GitHub's service includes hosting static web sites, that means no
scripting (PHP or similar).
However, it's possible to easily host
With something dyanmic we can embed tutorial videos even though they can
easily be uploaded to YouTube
On 29 Mar 2014 18:29, "Lukas W." wrote:
> I think a CMS is an overkill for a (mostly) static project website.
>
> 2014-03-29 16:32 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Aquilina :
> > I was going to setup a cms to
I think we should make all these synths optional downloads. We upload them
to the new site with a sample sound. Then one can download and easily
install them within lmms
On 29 Mar 2014 19:40, "David Gerard" wrote:
> On 29 March 2014 18:26, Israel wrote:
> > On 03/29/2014 01:24 PM, David Gerard w
On my monitors, that left instrument pane still has plenty of room. :)
--
___
LMMS-devel mailing list
LMMS-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo
On 29 March 2014 18:26, Israel wrote:
> On 03/29/2014 01:24 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> You know what I'd like? A short manual for every synth and every
>> filter plugin in LMMS. What the hell are half these things for? What
>> do the numbers you enter mean? "Enter a number between 0.001 and
>> 0.
I think that we really dont have too much synths. Variety is good. I will
be sad if you dont commit this synth :(
Best regards,
Uroš
On 29 March 2014 18:37, Vesa wrote:
> I was a bit bored, had nothing better to do, so I started making this
> little thing...
>
>
>
>
> But, well, we already ha
On 03/29/2014 01:24 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 March 2014 18:22, Israel wrote:
>
>> I don't think there is such a things as too many...
>
> You know what I'd like? A short manual for every synth and every
> filter plugin in LMMS. What the hell are half these things for? What
> do the numbers
On 29 March 2014 18:22, Israel wrote:
> I don't think there is such a things as too many...
You know what I'd like? A short manual for every synth and every
filter plugin in LMMS. What the hell are half these things for? What
do the numbers you enter mean? "Enter a number between 0.001 and
0.34
I don't think there is such a things as too many...
It might be nice, though to make something that can be used in more
projects as well.
It might be nice to have the ability to use it as a stand-alone plugin
as well.
Of course if there are lots and lots of new awesome plugins it might
be n
30.03.2014 0:54, Vesa ?:
On 03/29/2014 07:51 PM, giakk...@hotmail.it wrote:
Seems cool, but this would be the third TripleOscillator-like synth
Oh ok, I guess I'll just keep it for myself then.
No biggie then.
It's nothing like triple osc though... and neither is Watsyn. All of
them fun
30.03.2014 0:54, Vesa пишет:
> Oh ok, I guess I'll just keep it for myself then.
>
> No biggie then.
No, it does not need it to him .. Well, let it sit and without it.
And I would very much like a pair of new synthesizers!
--
On 03/29/2014 07:51 PM, giakk...@hotmail.it wrote:
> Seems cool, but this would be the third TripleOscillator-like synth
Oh ok, I guess I'll just keep it for myself then.
No biggie then.
It's nothing like triple osc though... and neither is Watsyn. All of
them function in very different ways and
Seems cool, but this would be the third TripleOscillator-like synth xD
Just, let's release the other new one you made, see what are its
problems, and then work on them... I think...
Il 29/03/2014 18:37, Vesa ha scritto:
I was a bit bored, had nothing better to do, so I started making this
lit
I was a bit bored, had nothing better to do, so I started making this
little thing...
But, well, we already have so many synths - too many, some say... so,
should I commit this in LMMS or just keep it for my personal use? Is
there any use or demand for this kind of thing?
I think a CMS is an overkill for a (mostly) static project website.
2014-03-29 16:32 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Aquilina :
> I was going to setup a cms to use called silver stripe.
>
> On 29 Mar 2014 16:01, "Lukas W." wrote:
>>
>> > Static website is nice but some eyecandy is nicer.
>> How is a website b
I was merely trying to expand on the concept to give a more general
guideline for adding and eliminating instruments.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Tres Finocchiaro <
tres.finocchi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agreed, that's why I said this: :)
>
> - No TripleOscillator submissions, we have enough
I would make this configurable to suite the needs of the person
On 29 Mar 2014 13:12, "Stian Jørgensrud" wrote:
> Very true. Undo/redo even after saving is awesome.
>
>
> Israel-28 wrote
> > Could there be a way to save the current state into a file? A lot of
> > programs save the current state
I was going to setup a cms to use called silver stripe.
On 29 Mar 2014 16:01, "Lukas W." wrote:
> > Static website is nice but some eyecandy is nicer.
> How is a website being static related to how much eye-candy it has?
> Those are two different shoes.
>
> The website, as it is now, could (shoul
> Static website is nice but some eyecandy is nicer.
How is a website being static related to how much eye-candy it has?
Those are two different shoes.
The website, as it is now, could (should?) be moved to GitHub. We
could greatly benefit from the possibilities of a git repository. The
URL would
Static website is nice but some eyecandy is nicer. In that case we can move
the user wiki to my server if you all would like
On 29 Mar 2014 13:07, "Stian Jørgensrud" wrote:
> Dev wiki is on github and it should stay there IMO. Easy for devs to access
> and easy for devs to edit.
>
>
> Jonathan Aq
Very true. Undo/redo even after saving is awesome.
Israel-28 wrote
> Could there be a way to save the current state into a file? A lot of
> programs save the current state as either currentfile.mmpz~ or
> untitled.mmpz~
> This would be a useful addition in addition to undo/redo
--
View th
Dev wiki is on github and it should stay there IMO. Easy for devs to access
and easy for devs to edit.
Jonathan Aquilina wrote
> @toby If this is going to be a problem with the wiki giving false
> positives
> as well as virus issues, I can host the wiki as I have media wiki setup
> for
> some how
Note that we could also host the website on GitHub, as long as it is
static or a blog-like site using Jekyll (http://jekyllrb.com/).
The page would be a repository on GitHub so that anyone can see the
source and submit pull requests in order to help improve it, which is
a huge advantage in my eyes.
Old news I am afraid. There already is a ticket for this.
--
View this message in context:
http://linux-multimedia-studio-lmms.996328.n3.nabble.com/Automation-editor-can-t-do-selecting-copying-pasting-moving-deleting-tp7459p7477.html
Sent from the lmms-devel mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Regarding the foundation where would we set it up? Malta germany where?
On 29 Mar 2014 10:58, "Tobias Doerffel" wrote:
> Means, if you have possibilities to reliably host the homepage, wiki
> etc. go ahead! We can also rent a server from the donations. Maybe the
> mentioned foundation idea is not
2014-03-28 4:10 GMT+01:00 Tres Finocchiaro :
> RemotePluginClient::shmget: No such file or directory
Try to add
#define USE_QT_SHMEM
inside the existing block
#ifdef LMMS_BUILD_APPLE
...
#endif
at the beginning of include/RemotePlugin.h - these sections should be
identical on OS X and Windows
We simply pull stable-1.0 into master branch from time to time. In
case they diverge too much, it'd be time to make the stable-1.1 branch
;-)
Toby
--
___
LMMS-devel mailing list
Means, if you have possibilities to reliably host the homepage, wiki
etc. go ahead! We can also rent a server from the donations. Maybe the
mentioned foundation idea is not bad so we can better handle financial
things - someone (besides me) just needs to take care of it.
Toby
Hi,
to be honest this doesn't really match with the LMMS style. Do we need a
graphics at all? If so, I'd prefer a professional screenshot which shows as
much as possible of the new theme, plugins, automation features etc.
Toby
--
OK. Apologies thanks for clarifying things
On 29 Mar 2014 10:46, "Tobias Doerffel" wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> we're talking about a new homepage for months now ;-) I don't have the
> time to manage neither homepage nor platforms like LSP, wiki, forum
> etc. and I handle any decisions regarding the
2014-03-29 10:39 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Aquilina :
> If there are things which have been fixed that you think warrants a point
> release i would say we should go for it. Do you have a time line for these
> point bug fix releases?
No, I don't. But as bug fix releases are not a big deal, we can always
p
I think though we should setup a review system. To get anything included in
a stable branch 2 reviews are needed. Master no reviews. This is a slightly
modified approach adapted from what libreoffice do
On 29 Mar 2014 10:42, "Vesa" wrote:
> On 03/29/2014 10:59 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> > Tobiasz
Hi Jonathan,
we're talking about a new homepage for months now ;-) I don't have the
time to manage neither homepage nor platforms like LSP, wiki, forum
etc. and I handle any decisions regarding these subjects over to you.
I updated the homepage so far that 1.0.0 is now listed.
Toby
On 03/29/2014 10:59 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> Tobiasz is worried because this is what happened before - the 0.5.x
> branch was cool-but-unusable, and was eventually abandoned; 1.0
> descends from the 0.4.x branch, which people actually used and tested
> and was where all the action happened.
>
> So
@toby,
If there are things which have been fixed that you think warrants a point
release i would say we should go for it. Do you have a time line for these
point bug fix releases? Also whats happening with Paul's Unison core. Has
he started working on integration?
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 10:25 A
On 03/29/2014 09:48 AM, Tobiasz Karoń wrote:
>
>
> Isn't this going to lead us to the same place where we've been before?
> When the dev branch is super cool yet unusable and the stable branch
> isn't moving at all?
>
No. As long as we actually keep developing the master branch. The stable
branch
Hi,
yes we have to be careful and have to keep things clear. So what we
have now are 3 major changes (undo/redo, new FX mixer, ZASF update)
which should be under control. If we manage to stabilize these in the
next 2 months, we can safely release 1.1 in Q2 without having broken
too many things. In
@david Agreed there, I wonder if toby should do a merge of what we have in
the stable 1.0 branch in terms of fixes so far, Also another question would
be do we have a time line for a 1.0.1 release?
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 9:59 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> Tobiasz is worried because this is what ha
Tobiasz is worried because this is what happened before - the 0.5.x
branch was cool-but-unusable, and was eventually abandoned; 1.0
descends from the 0.4.x branch, which people actually used and tested
and was where all the action happened.
So I'd just take it as a note of caution :-) Something li
@toby If this is going to be a problem with the wiki giving false positives
as well as virus issues, I can host the wiki as I have media wiki setup for
some how to documentation of my own, I can setup another instance for the
LMMS wiki both for devs and users alike.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:41 P
I disagree. if you only have a single branch you can easily introduce new
regressions and bugs on something that is already quite usable. the 1.0
branch is now used for bug fixing until we release 1.1. as well any bug
fixes in 1.0 also get applied and or backported to the master branch, or
the 1.0
On 23 Mar 2014 17:58, "Vesa" wrote:
>
> On 03/23/2014 05:57 PM, Tobias Doerffel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > as announced for weeks, we want to release 1.0.0 - if possible, today.
> > Is there any critical issue that I'm not aware of which should be
> > fixed before 1.0.0? As for the 1.0.0 milestone on
I can design a big loud banner for 1.0.0 announcements. Any preffered
dimensions?
Also, we need to update the webpage, it isn't saying a word about the new
release.
On 24 Mar 2014 00:13, "Tobias Doerffel" wrote:
> Ok, there we go:
>
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/lmms/files/lmms/1.0.0/
>
> A
I'm using 1.0.0 pre-release off someone's PPA.
This looks like a little regression in relation to 0.4.15.
Ctrl+A does nothing.
Anyone can confirm this?
--
___
LMMS-devel mailin
61 matches
Mail list logo
