On Tuesday 15 August 2006 7:31 pm, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
> > I'm not proposing to change the order of the panels.
>
> I'm not proposing that, either. I'm talking about which part of the track
> parameter box should be hidden to save space in the vertical stacked mode.
> Do you prefer to hi
On Wednesday, 16 August 2006 01:00, D. Michael McIntyre wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 August 2006 5:29 pm, Chris Cannam wrote:
> > I don't find them comfortable, I don't use them, and I
> > probably never will - although I do kind of like them in
> > theory, and would understand if others did in
> > pract
Am I genius or what? :)
Start rg and right click on tempo ruler -- menu is there.
Hit "New" icon and then right click on the same ruler -- menu is gone.
Vlada
-
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services,
On Wednesday, 16 August 2006 01:19, D. Michael McIntyre wrote:
> I still use the old fashioned way to assign an
> instrument to a track, but it's nice having the track's instrument choice
> visible at the top. Of course I'm looking at it with the TPB on its own
> tab, for now, because I have to. W
Start rg with original autoload.rg and hit play.
Hold down left click and drag tempo line up. It's easier to reproduce crash
when tempo is higher value. About 400bpm should be fine.
Click again, but now using right mouse button. Menu will pop up. While that
menu is still visible do one more righ
On Wednesday, 16 August 2006 01:19, D. Michael McIntyre wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 August 2006 5:54 pm, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
> > It is an arbitrary decision what is more important for the TPB: the
> > segment defaults, the playback parameters, or the recording filters. I
> > would agree with a
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 5:54 pm, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
> I don't disagree with this arrangement for the vertical stacked layout of
> the parameter area (it's not very relevant which parameter box is at the
> top in this case) but the new default is the tabbed arrangement, and in
> this c
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 5:29 pm, Chris Cannam wrote:
> I don't find them comfortable, I don't use them, and I
> probably never will - although I do kind of like them in
> theory, and would understand if others did in
> practice.
I'd probably never use them either if it weren't necessary to do s
On Tuesday, 15 August 2006 23:13, D. Michael McIntyre wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 August 2006 1:03 pm, you wrote:
> > * rearrange parameter boxes from track/segment/instrument to
> > segment/instrument/ track -- let's see what people say
>
> It's actually segment/track/instrument here.
Same here.
I do
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 1:03 pm, you wrote:
> * rearrange parameter boxes from track/segment/instrument to
> segment/instrument/ track -- let's see what people say
I say boo.
It's actually segment/track/instrument here.
This strikes me as wrong, because I'm staring at an empty composition her
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 22:29, D. Michael McIntyre wrote:
>
> should work that way. What you've done with the actual fix, rather than
> the fix Chris talked you out of, is make Rosegarden's behavior match up
> with my expectations. Vlada's too, apparently, and Chris's, and surely a
> host of ot
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 11:32 am, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> There's this empty space which doesn't mean anything, but mostly it means
> you can temporarily move a segment to another track just to shuffle them
> around... I tend to see the segment canvas as a workspace, like in a file
> manager,
On Tuesday 15 Aug 2006 18:37, Vladimir Savic wrote:
> I'm unable to provide any back trace right now, but I'll try to, in case
> you can't reproduce the problem.
It's OK, I can. Fix in SVN. Thanks.
Chris
-
Using Tomcat bu
Just in case you haven't noticed...
In brief:
Double click on tempo line. Close window that appeared. Double click again to
reopen it and rg crashes.
I'm unable to provide any back trace right now, but I'll try to, in case you
can't reproduce the problem.
Vlada
---
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 17:13, Chris Cannam wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 Aug 2006 11:46, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> > I mostly agree with all those (and have committed a fix accordingly)
>
> I don't see one -- are you sure you committed it?
I thought I had, but indeed I hadn't... I think eclipse didn'
On Tuesday 15 Aug 2006 11:46, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> I mostly agree with all those (and have committed a fix accordingly)
I don't see one -- are you sure you committed it?
> Presenting a composition with a very small number of tracks just doesn't
> look good, nor feels comfortable.
I honestl
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 11:46, Chris Cannam wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 Aug 2006 08:34, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> > I'm very tempted to enforce this at the composition level,
> > i.e. no composition can have less than 64 tracks.
>
> I think that's a bad idea that wouldn't be at all popular with users
On Tuesday 15 Aug 2006 08:34, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> I'm very tempted to enforce this at the composition level,
> i.e. no composition can have less than 64 tracks.
I think that's a bad idea that wouldn't be at all popular with users.
Remember that one of the trends of our current development
Looking at this bug
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104932&aid=1539726&group_id=4932
I found that indeed, when you import a file which has less than 64 tracks, you
get into a situation where the track "buttons" on the left side of the canvas
are shorter than the canvas, so it'
19 matches
Mail list logo
