On 07/11/2007, at 19.07, marius schebella wrote:
you can start searching in 2002.
Now i don't know if i repeat anyone from the past. I apologize
beforehand.
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
If there isn't a bug report for this, please file one and I'll take a
look when I get a chance.
Ma
On Nov 8, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Steffen Juul wrote:
>
> On 07/11/2007, at 19.07, marius schebella wrote:
>
>> you can start searching in 2002.
>
> Now i don't know if i repeat anyone from the past. I apologize
> beforehand.
>
>> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>> If there isn't a bug report for thi
On Nov 9, 2007 8:41 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 8, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Steffen Juul wrote:
>
> > Now i don't know if i repeat anyone from the past. I apologize
> > beforehand.
>
> > So it seams it grows 4px per run with a reload.
>
> This is a very helpful ill
> I believe this is a very old bug, no? I had similar behavior for a long
> time with vanilla Pd on Windows and Mac. Haven't noticed it lately,
> though,
> so maybe that was fixed already. I'm also mostly using Linux now.
It's been always there, in both dists. but I noticed that it doesn't
On Nov 9, 2007 1:33 PM, João Miguel Pais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I believe this is a very old bug, no? I had similar behavior for a long
> > time with vanilla Pd on Windows and Mac. Haven't noticed it lately,
> > though,
> > so maybe that was fixed already. I'm also mostly using Linux no
On 09/11/2007, at 7.41, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> This is a very helpful illustration of the bug. I think that it's
> probably happening when opening the patch.
That sounds reasonable. Maybe your new cursor position object can
help answer that question.
> Could you add this info to t
On 9 Nov 2007, at 2:59 AM, Steffen Juul wrote:
> I made a patch to test the behavior. This is the test:
>
> 1) Note that the patch is 500x300 initially. Either by opening in a
> text editor or with 'head -1' or.
> 2) Open the attached patch. Click the [10( on one of the sides.
> 3) Note that th
simon wise wrote:
> Playing around and testing it seems something (possibly in the new
> visuals) is slowwwing down displaying/opening patches
i've noticed the same.
cheers, robbert
--
pd-0.40.3-extended-20071106
mac osx 10.4.8, 15" G4 PB 1.67 GHz, 1 GB ram
_
On Nov 11, 2007, at 2:19 PM, robbert van hulzen wrote:
>
> simon wise wrote:
>
>> Playing around and testing it seems something (possibly in the new
>> visuals) is slowwwing down displaying/opening patches
>
> i've noticed the same.
> cheers, robbert
>
> --
> pd-0.40.3-extended-20071106
> mac o
On 12 Nov 2007, at 10:02 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>> simon wise wrote:
>>
>>> Playing around and testing it seems something (possibly in the new
>>> visuals) is slowwwing down displaying/opening patches
>>
>> i've noticed the same.
>> cheers, robbert
>>
>> --
>> pd-0.40.3-extended-200
> On 12 Nov 2007, at 10:02 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
>>> simon wise wrote:
>>>
Playing around and testing it seems something (possibly in the new
visuals) is slowwwing down displaying/opening patches
>>>
>>> i've noticed the same.
>>> cheers, robbert
>>>
>>> -- pd-0.40.3-ext
On Nov 11, 2007, at 9:18 PM, simon wise wrote:
>
> On 12 Nov 2007, at 10:02 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
>>> simon wise wrote:
>>>
Playing around and testing it seems something (possibly in the new
visuals) is slowwwing down displaying/opening patches
>>>
>>> i've noticed the sam
On Nov 11, 2007, at 11:12 PM, simon wise wrote:
>
>
>> On 12 Nov 2007, at 10:02 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>
simon wise wrote:
> Playing around and testing it seems something (possibly in the new
> visuals) is slowwwing down displaying/opening patches
i've noti
On 13 Nov 2007, at 2:59 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Maybe try an autobuild from a month ago, before the color changes?
Could you post patches that illustrate the slow loading?
>>>
>>> I'll try earlier versions to see when the problem happened - but it
>>> is true of ALL patch
Hans
using your speedtest on my machine for the versions shows little
difference in the times measured (old Powerbook G4 667MHz OSX10.4.8).
time to display the patch is much longer than the measured times - a
couple of seconds at least in the newer autobuild - and CPU reads
high for most of
This is definitely useful. It would be great if you could the builds
between 2007-11-04 and 2007-11-09 to narrow it further. I checked in
a few things in that time period.
.hc
On Nov 12, 2007, at 8:49 PM, simon wise wrote:
> Hans
>
> using your speedtest on my machine for the versions sho
On 13 Nov 2007, at 2:02 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> The 2007-11-05 ones are marked as 04 because it got messed up with
> daylight savings time change. But it is a different build, and it
> has key differences from 2007-11-06...
07/11/05 has the bad behavior - it redraws everything li
17 matches
Mail list logo
