Re: [LMMS-devel] LMMS 2.0 progress so far

diiz wrote > On 01/03/2015 01:14 AM, Stian Jørgensrud wrote: >> Were Pattern (Editor) also in use in other DAWs? > > Step sequencer is what it's usually called. "Pattern editor" I think is > mostly a FL studio thing. OK, I vote for Sequencer and Pattern Editor. -- View this message in context:

Re: [LMMS-devel] LMMS 2.0 progress so far

On 01/03/2015 01:14 AM, Stian Jørgensrud wrote: > Were Pattern (Editor) also in use in other DAWs? Step sequencer is what it's usually called. "Pattern editor" I think is mostly a FL studio thing. -- Dive into the World o

Re: [LMMS-devel] LMMS 2.0 progress so far

Well, since Sequencer is in use in other software it couldn't be that bad... Tres Finocchiaro wrote > Perhaps it's > not as important as I am making it though. :\ > > - > Tres.Finocchiaro@ Far more important is the clips/segments/patterns/Track containers. Better have one name everyone is u

Re: [LMMS-devel] LMMS 2.0 progress so far

Well, we were as close as we're ever going to get on "Sequence Editor", so we could milestone that, right? Toby liked Paul's recommendations here . You're right, this is a sensitive subject that's hard to agree on, but I feel that 2.0

Re: [LMMS-devel] LMMS 2.0 progress so far

On 12/31/2014 08:54 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > @Vesa, > > Should we consider either of these as part of 2.0? Eh, I don't know. Name changes are hard, we never reached any kind of consensus on any of the name change issues... personally, I'd be fine with renaming Song Editor -> Sequencer, but ca

Re: [LMMS-devel] LMMS 2.0 progress so far

@Vesa, Should we consider either of these as part of 2.0? https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/120 https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/121 -Tres - tres.finocchi...@gmail.com On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Tres Finocchiaro < tres.finocchi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is there anything that can be d

Re: [LMMS-devel] LMMS 2.0 progress so far

> > Is there anything that can be done to avert the future where none of our > files work any more? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the original statement claiming that all backwards compatibility would be broken is a bit extreme. So as long as we are using the same or similar methods to

Re: [LMMS-devel] LMMS 2.0 progress so far

Is there anything that can be done to avert the future where none of our files work any more? (I note your original plan would also mean the entire contents of the LSP won't work any more.) On 26 December 2014 at 21:32, Vesa wrote: > So I feel like I have to document the changes so that other de

Re: [LMMS-devel] LMMS 2.0 progress so far

> > Next, I'm going to focus on dBV-scale controls, Shouldn't LMMS use dBFS for its loudness measurement? dBFS is used by a lot of DAWs, and seems like a standard. -Uroš|Umcaruje On 26 December 2014 at 22:32, Vesa wrote: > So I feel like I have to document the changes so that other developers

Re: [LMMS-devel] LMMS 2.0 progress so far

On 12/28/2014 11:03 AM, David Gerard wrote: > Is there anything that can be done to avert the future where none of > our files work any more? Certainly. Start organizing the campaign to hire a paid developer for the LMMS team. We had everything planned out for this, the only thing missing is someo

Re: [LMMS-devel] LMMS 2.0 progress so far

@Vesa, Thanks for the status update and what sounds like great progress. To keep things in perspective, we may want to map our 2.0 milestones/progress to our future map (if not now, then eventually) which may help contributors choose where to offer their assistance in certain areas. -

Re: [LMMS-devel] LMMS 2.0 progress so far

On 12/28/2014 11:43 AM, I'm Umcaruje wrote: > > Next, I'm going to focus on dBV-scale controls, > > > Shouldn't LMMS use dBFS for its loudness measurement? dBFS is used by > a lot of DAWs, and seems like a standard. We're not doing loudness measurement anywhere (loudness != volume), and dBFS

[LMMS-devel] LMMS 2.0 progress so far

So I feel like I have to document the changes so that other developers will know what's what and can possibly also contribute at some point towards the 2.0 effort. Currently, tempo track has been implemented. The way it works is, that tempo track inherits automation track, and tempo pattern inheri