Re: [LMMS-devel] Let's release 1.1

Hm.. Maybe I'm wrong.. sorry for that :/ Am 22. Oktober 2014 18:40:59 MESZ, schrieb Tres Finocchiaro : ]> # was introduced along all the new mixer stuff. ] ]IIRC, it was found it had been around for a while. Is this not ]accurate? ] ]-Tres ] ]- tres.finocchi...@gmail.com ] ]On Wed, Oct 22, 2

Re: [LMMS-devel] Let's release 1.1

> # was introduced along all the new mixer stuff. IIRC, it was found it had been around for a while. Is this not accurate? -Tres - tres.finocchi...@gmail.com On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Tres Finocchiaro < tres.finocchi...@gmail.com> wrote: > P.S. I just noticed, Toby self-assigned t

Re: [LMMS-devel] Let's release 1.1

P.S. I just noticed, Toby self-assigned that bug, which means it will be looked at eventually. :) - tres.finocchi...@gmail.com On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Tres Finocchiaro < tres.finocchi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't think you should release an unfinished version, right? > > If you can

Re: [LMMS-devel] Let's release 1.1

> I don't think you should release an unfinished version, right? If you can attribute the VST bug to the 1.1 release, we can hold off until it's patched, but no one did that. Here's the request for better testing results: https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/1049#issuecomment-53179473 If our use

Re: [LMMS-devel] Let's release 1.1

True... :) But I don't think you should release an unfinished version, right? Am 22.10.2014 18:17, schrieb Vesa: > On 10/22/2014 06:45 PM, bubblegummer wrote: >> ]Other 1.1 bugs that likely won't make the initial release: >> ]https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3

Re: [LMMS-devel] Let's release 1.1

On 10/22/2014 06:45 PM, bubblegummer wrote: > > ]Other 1.1 bugs that likely won't make the initial release: > ]https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A1.1.0 > > Why not? Some of them are really annoying! No one is stopping you from fixing them.

Re: [LMMS-devel] Let's release 1.1

]Other 1.1 bugs that likely won't make the initial release: ]https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A1.1.0 Why not? Some of them are really annoying! #1049 makes half my VSTs unusable, # was introduced along all the new mixer stuff. Everyone can try the new mi

Re: [LMMS-devel] Let's release 1.1

We have frozen 1.1. > Is that rc flawed As far as I can tell, there is one single bug holding up it's release: https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/1198 Other 1.1 bugs that likely won't make the initial release: https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A1.1.0 -Tre

Re: [LMMS-devel] Let's release 1.1

How about freeze further changes, draw a sharp line in the sand, and then release 1.1.0, as 1.0.93 rc4 Is that rc flawed? -- View this message in context: http://linux-multimedia-studio-lmms.996328.n3.nabble.com/Let-s-release-1-1-tp10316p10644.html Sent from the lmms-devel mailing list archive

[LMMS-devel] New filters

I put some new filters into master. I think they sound pretty cool. Test them, please. DoubleMoog is just a doubled version of the Moog filter, similar to the DoubleLowPass filter. Then there's the SV filters: SV Lowpass, SV Bandpass and SV Highpass. These are 4-pole state-variant filters. I swip

Re: [LMMS-devel] LMMS Memory Manager

No time before the weekend, but I will do then! On 22 October 2014 13:18, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > I've been busy with the lmms.io repo, terribly sorry for lack of involvement > on this one. I've been following the chain of emails, just short on time > this month. > > - tres.finocchi...@gmail.c

Re: [LMMS-devel] LMMS Memory Manager

I've been busy with the lmms.io repo , terribly sorry for lack of involvement on this one. I've been following the chain of emails, just short on time this month. - tres.finocchi...@gmail.com On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Vesa wrote: > On 10/21/2014

Re: [LMMS-devel] LMMS Memory Manager

On 10/22/2014 05:46 AM, Vesa wrote: > On 10/21/2014 02:38 AM, Vesa wrote: >> On 10/21/2014 01:58 AM, Vesa wrote: >>> Maybe others could try to do some tests as well and report their >>> results? The main branches of interest are the current master and the >>> memmgr branch. >> To elaborate, here's

Re: [LMMS-devel] Discuss: Small forms and the 'Stay-up'-flag

...Aaaand back to topic :p wouldent it mean *less clicks* in the work process, if the *default* was /'Stay-up'/ That was this topic I feel it would. Think about the small windowforms, i find myself constantly settin them to 'Stay up', and then move them a little, if i need to set focus on forms beh