31 Jul
2012
31 Jul
'12
2:35 p.m.
Why do we still support Rosegarden?
Reasons not to support it.
1. It is not a kde project. Right now, Rosegarden is an independent project.
2. The current Rosegarden does not depend on KDE4, instead it depends
on Qt4 and other libraries (not unreasonable)
3. It has a large codebase that is aging, and is a highly specific
application, used for music creators, who will be using the latest
versions of it (for integration with things like jack and dbus), not
the ancient kde3 version.
4. we don't know anything about how it works code wise, sure we can
fix some problems here and there, but we obviously will not be
developing it.
Reasons to support it.
1. someone somewhere somehow may be philosophically against using Qt4.
Calvin
31 Jul
31 Jul
3:41 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Rosegarden
On 07/31/2012 09:35 AM, Calvin Morrison wrote:
Why do we still support Rosegarden?
Reasons not to support it.
1. It is not a kde project. Right now, Rosegarden is an independent project.
2. The current Rosegarden does not depend on KDE4, instead it depends
on Qt4 and other libraries (not unreasonable)
3. It has a large codebase that is aging, and is a highly specific
application, used for music creators, who will be using the latest
versions of it (for integration with things like jack and dbus), not
the ancient kde3 version.
4. we don't know anything about how it works code wise, sure we can
fix some problems here and there, but we obviously will not be
developing it.
Reasons to support it.
1. someone somewhere somehow may be philosophically against using Qt4.
2. The code is in very good shape and builds fine on Qt3, libpng15, gcc47, etc...
3. It does NOT require Qt4.
4. It works very well in its current form.
It's not a question of why do we still support it - there has been almost no
support required.
The question is: "When should we stop supporting it?"
Answer: "When a core library change breaks the rosegarden GIT tree API/whatever
and where the amount of support required exceeds what someone is willing to do
to preserve it in its current form and decides to port the upstream version to
TDE..."
This is one of those -- you don't just run out an buy another dishwasher for the
heck of it things,.... you wait until the one you have breaks and the cost of
repair exceeds the cost of a new one :)
--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
3:58 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Rosegarden
On 31 July 2012 11:41, David C. Rankin <drankinatty(a)suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
On 07/31/2012 09:35 AM, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> Why do we still support Rosegarden?
>
> Reasons not to support it.
> 1. It is not a kde project. Right now, Rosegarden is an independent project.
> 2. The current Rosegarden does not depend on KDE4, instead it depends
> on Qt4 and other libraries (not unreasonable)
> 3. It has a large codebase that is aging, and is a highly specific
> application, used for music creators, who will be using the latest
> versions of it (for integration with things like jack and dbus), not
> the ancient kde3 version.
> 4. we don't know anything about how it works code wise, sure we can
> fix some problems here and there, but we obviously will not be
> developing it.
>
> Reasons to support it.
> 1. someone somewhere somehow may be philosophically against using Qt4.
>
3. It does NOT require Qt4.
I do not see this as
a bad thing. I think arguing that using Qt4 over
Qt3 is not enough to keep a program around. A toolkit is simple what
the program utilizes to display things, it doesn't have much to do
with functionality... which leads to my next point.
4. It works very well in its current form.
It doesn't! it is not up to scratch with the current rosegarden
project. It's a dead standstill from where they were 4 years ago. This
is sort along the lines of the KWin thing, except there is no huff and
puff about depending upon KDE4. In fact, we will be depending on Qt4
eventually I see it as even less of an issue.
It's not a question of why do we still sunport it
- there has been almost no
support required.
The question is: "When should we stop supporting it?"
Answer: "When a core library change breaks the rosegarden GIT tree API/whatever
and where the amount of support required exceeds what someone is willing to do
to preserve it in its current form and decides to port the upstream version to
TDE..."
Well that's another thing... current Rosegarden doesn't need to be
ported to TDE. it already works great in TDE! I use it frequently for
my home studio.
This is one of those -- you don't just run out an
buy another dishwasher for the
heck of it things,.... you wait until the one you have breaks and the cost of
repair exceeds the cost of a new one :)
Except that we are not talking about physical hunks of metal and
wiring which cost hundreds of dollars to replace. We are talking about
something along the lines of
apt-get remove rosegarden-trinity
apt-get install rosegarden
Calvin
8:01 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Rosegarden
On 07/31/2012 10:58 AM, Calvin Morrison wrote:
I'm not arguing that Qt4 is bad -- I don't think it is, there are a couple of
apps I have that must have it (keepassx for one). However, give the choice, I
prefer Qt3 apps due to the look and feel (and if column handling is at issue
-- the Qt3 apps work..)
Well, to be fair, this is where I must qualify my answer. "It does everything
I need it to do :)" Which means it opens and runs without crashing. (after
you load the modules) If there are new features, then I don't miss them :)
What is it that the Qt3 based rosegarden in the GIT tree doesn't do?
I mean I'm not stuck on it and if the upstream version will work fine (and
look right), then I don't have any heartache over using it.
What does the new one do that the old one doesn't -- other than not popping up
the 'New version available dialog' on start each time?
--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
>3. It does NOT require Qt4.
I do not
see this as a bad thing. I think arguing that using Qt4 over
Qt3 is not enough to keep a program around. A toolkit is simple what
the program utilizes to display things, it doesn't have much to do
with functionality... which leads to my next point.
>4. It
works very well in its current form.
It doesn't! it is not up to scratch with
the current rosegarden
project. It's a dead standstill from where they were 4 years ago. This
is sort along the lines of the KWin thing, except there is no huff and
puff about depending upon KDE4. In fact, we will be depending on Qt4
eventually I see it as even less of an issue. >It's not a question of why do we still
sunport it - there has been almost no
>support required.
>
>The question is: "When should we stop supporting it?"
>
>Answer: "When a core library change breaks the rosegarden GIT tree API/whatever
>and where the amount of support required exceeds what someone is willing to do
>to preserve it in its current form and decides to port the upstream version to
>TDE..."
Well that's another thing... current Rosegarden doesn't
need to be
ported to TDE. it already works great in TDE! I use it frequently for
my home studio.
>This is
one of those -- you don't just run out an buy another dishwasher for the
>heck of it things,.... you wait until the one you have breaks and the cost of
>repair exceeds the cost of a new one :)
Except that we are not talking about
physical hunks of metal and
wiring which cost hundreds of dollars to replace. We are talking about
something along the lines of
apt-get remove rosegarden-trinity
apt-get install rosegarden
Calvin 
8:42 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Rosegarden
On 07/31/2012 10:58 AM, Calvin Morrison wrote:
I'm not arguing that Qt4 is bad -- I don't think it is, there are a couple
of
apps I have that must have it (keepassx for one). However, give the
choice, I
prefer Qt3 apps due to the look and feel (and if column handling is at
issue
-- the Qt3 apps work..)
<snip>
We will keep Rosegarden and any other app that is maintained upstream in
legacy mode until the application becomes unmaintainable. This is no
different than Microsoft continuing to patch Windows 2000 or Windows XP
long after Vista has been released.
Tim
>3. It does NOT require Qt4.
I do not
see this as a bad thing. I think arguing that using Qt4 over
Qt3 is not enough to keep a program around. A toolkit is simple what
the program utilizes to display things, it doesn't have much to do
with functionality... which leads to my next point.
4281
days inactive
4281
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Calvin Morrison -
David C. Rankin -
Timothy Pearson