[ardour-dev] code monkeys
markknecht at gmail.com
Fri Jan 7 21:54:40 PST 2005
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:57:52 -0500, Paul Davis
<paul at linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
> >I'm more concerned about session file compatibility over the
> >transition from 1.0 to 2.0. Taking this other thread about ?'s in file
> I thought I had made this clear enough, but apparently not.
> 2.0 will feature NO FUNCTIONAL CHANGES TO ARDOUR.
You made your INTENTION completely clear, and I applaud the intention.
My point is about the execution, not the intention. If something
creeps in and starts to exist for a period of time then it gains
traction and it's harder to get out later. I'm jsut suggesting that if
users (not developers) do testing on more systems that this would be
> The only purpose of the 1.0 -> 2.0 transition is to facilitate a port
> to GTK2, which will involve a fairly massive change to the gtk_ardour
> code base.
> Post-1.0, we guarantee that your 1.0 and later sessions will *always*
> load or alternatively there will be a conversion utility.
> >I'm thinking that none of the developers are using VFAT or maybe this
> >? question would have been seen by now. I haven't updated Ardour and
> It was added within the last two weeks or so.
Cool. Again, I get the intention, and if you're cool with you guys
looking after this aspect of things then I don't need to do any of
If you find something that you need a non-code-monkey to do let me
know. Until I get a job I certainly have more time.
More information about the Ardour-Dev