Quantcast

LAME Installer for Windows

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

LAME Installer for Windows

Gale Andrews

James and I believe there is a strong case in saved support time for building
an executable installer for LAME for Windows users, to be available for 1.4.0.
Leland was keen to have this as well. I have known up to five hours a week
go on helping Windows users with this issue on the erstwhile -help list, even
when they are pointed to an unzipped copy of the .dll to save them one part
of the problem. I assume (with Buanzo's agreement, which is essential) we
would host this on:
http://lame.buanzo.com.ar/

Any views on this, or ideas as to the likely size of the installer for hosting
considerations?


Gale      



Outbound message virus free.
Tested on: 10/19/2007 12:43:39 AM




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: LAME Installer for Windows

Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Gale Andrews wrote:
> of the problem. I assume (with Buanzo's agreement, which is essential) we
> would host this on: http://lame.buanzo.com.ar/

Okay with me!


- --
Arturo "Buanzo" Busleiman - Consultor Independiente en Seguridad Informatica
Servicios Ofrecidos: http://www.buanzo.com.ar/pro/
Unase a los Foros GNU/Buanzo - La palabra Comunidad en su maxima expresion.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHGHZ5AlpOsGhXcE0RCkwgAJoC9KgreCLA2EKOr8IlO1T5uHbwKgCcCUYy
BpD7EGYdmDTSVif9CAh/2lU=
=eoH7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: LAME Installer for Windows

James Crook
In reply to this post by Gale Andrews
For background, this came out of a discussion with Gale as to what
should count as an essential and what shouldn't.  I came up with a list
of guidelines ranging from:

* A reproducible crash is always an essential fix.

to

* Some user issues that are 'cheaper' to fix than to use-as-is are
candidates for being essentials. They need discussing on audacity-devel.
  Generally such issues are aim tos.

More guidelines at:

http://www.audacityteam.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Release_Checklist


The 'economic' argument is that if we're freeing up fifty hours of
support work over the lifespan of the 1.4 release, it's worth putting in
three hours of development effort to do so now.  From what Gale has said
it sounds like this could be the case with (windows) Lame installation
which has been costing considerably more time.

Is it necessary to hold up the 1.3.4 release for this?  The in-house
trial, no, but the actual release probably yes.  To be sure that Lame
installation is actually easier, we probably need to test/develop it
with 1.3.4, i.e. it may involve small changes in 1.3.4 too.  It's up for
discussion, and we also need to discuss exactly what an installer would
need to do to be worthwhile.

--James



Gale Andrews wrote:

> James and I believe there is a strong case in saved support time for building
> an executable installer for LAME for Windows users, to be available for 1.4.0.
> Leland was keen to have this as well. I have known up to five hours a week
> go on helping Windows users with this issue on the erstwhile -help list, even
> when they are pointed to an unzipped copy of the .dll to save them one part
> of the problem. I assume (with Buanzo's agreement, which is essential) we
> would host this on:
> http://lame.buanzo.com.ar/
>
> Any views on this, or ideas as to the likely size of the installer for hosting
> considerations?
>
>
> Gale      

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: what's essential (was LAME Installer for Windows)

Vaughan Johnson
Administrator
Thanks for the update, James. It's good to have guidelines.

Maybe I'm thin-skinned, but I'm a bit disturbed at the tone of some of
our recent discussions. For instance, I don't think anybody "abandoned"
or "aborted" the schedule. My understanding is that we agreed (at least
tacitly) that the Cancel, keyboard interaction, and other bugs warranted
fixing in 1.3.4, and they previously weren't even on the checklist. Some
of the added changes have certainly not been essential, but were
requested repeatedly, even after the target slipped. Given that the
timetable was set from a certain state of the checklist, it's hard to
expect that adding new tasks would not break the planned timetable.

Maybe we should have discussed the delay explicitly, but I think we were
just working to get the bugs fixed, and anybody could have raised the
delay issue. We're all unhappy with any delay toward 1.4.0, but that
bigger goal of 1.4.0 really requires the essential fixes, including
newly-discovered ones.

I think it's worth pointing out that lots of open source projects
release more often and with more known bugs. But in this group, we've
been less willing to do that. Especially in a beta line, though, I think
it makes sense. I don't think we've ever had so much discussion about
when a release will be ready. My impression is that nobody in the group
wants to consider a 1.3.5, but especially given that 1.3.4 will be
out-of-sync across platforms, I don't think it's a bad idea, and we'd
get lots more feedback in the meantime. Perhaps there are other
essential bugs we don't actually know about yet.

But my bigger point is, we're working cooperatively, voluntarily, and in
our spare time, so let's be encouraging to each other.

...And discuss a revised timetable.


Regarding the mic & speaker icons bug I mentioned, I:

    * Built with experimental theme prefs turned on & clicked the
      Default button on the Theme tab.
    * Got rid of all my Audacity Application Data.
    * Deleted all Audacity entries in Registry.

...and I still have the problem. But if nobody else does?

I looked at the code again. The initialization code is similar to the
Meters' icons, which show correctly, but the Device and Mixer toolbars
are drawn very differently from Meters. I tried using Image in
initialization instead of Bitmap (per James's comment in the Meter
code), but it didn't help.

Thanks,
Vaughan


James Crook wrote:

> For background, this came out of a discussion with Gale as to what
> should count as an essential and what shouldn't.  I came up with a list
> of guidelines ranging from:
>
> * A reproducible crash is always an essential fix.
>
> to
>
> * Some user issues that are 'cheaper' to fix than to use-as-is are
> candidates for being essentials. They need discussing on audacity-devel.
>   Generally such issues are aim tos.
>
> More guidelines at:
>
> http://www.audacityteam.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Release_Checklist
>
>
> The 'economic' argument is that if we're freeing up fifty hours of
> support work over the lifespan of the 1.4 release, it's worth putting in
> three hours of development effort to do so now.  From what Gale has said
> it sounds like this could be the case with (windows) Lame installation
> which has been costing considerably more time.
>
> Is it necessary to hold up the 1.3.4 release for this?  The in-house
> trial, no, but the actual release probably yes.  To be sure that Lame
> installation is actually easier, we probably need to test/develop it
> with 1.3.4, i.e. it may involve small changes in 1.3.4 too.  It's up for
> discussion, and we also need to discuss exactly what an installer would
> need to do to be worthwhile.
>
> --James
>
>
>
> Gale Andrews wrote:
>  
>> James and I believe there is a strong case in saved support time for building
>> an executable installer for LAME for Windows users, to be available for 1.4.0.
>> Leland was keen to have this as well. I have known up to five hours a week
>> go on helping Windows users with this issue on the erstwhile -help list, even
>> when they are pointed to an unzipped copy of the .dll to save them one part
>> of the problem. I assume (with Buanzo's agreement, which is essential) we
>> would host this on:
>> http://lame.buanzo.com.ar/
>>
>> Any views on this, or ideas as to the likely size of the installer for hosting
>> considerations?
>>
>>
>> Gale      
>>    
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
>
>  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: what's essential (was LAME Installer for Windows)

David R. Sky
Hi Vaughan and others,

personally I don't see a "good enough" reason to force a release at a
certain date. To me what's more important - "pushing" to get Audacity
released on a certain date, or releasing a clean smoothly-working version
of Audacity? I would definitely feel more satisfied in me the more cleanly
it's working. And for me in particular, getting the nyquist plug-ins
working well and in the most user-friendly way I and Gale and anyone else
can.

I've also been getting some new projects in my life such as a day-long
conference at the provincial legislature here in British Columbia which I
need to prepare for.

I can't and don't necessarily speak for other developers here - that's my
view.

Thanks

David


On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Vaughan Johnson wrote:

> Thanks for the update, James. It's good to have guidelines.
>
> Maybe I'm thin-skinned, but I'm a bit disturbed at the tone of some of
> our recent discussions. For instance, I don't think anybody "abandoned"
> or "aborted" the schedule. My understanding is that we agreed (at least
> tacitly) that the Cancel, keyboard interaction, and other bugs warranted
> fixing in 1.3.4, and they previously weren't even on the checklist. Some
> of the added changes have certainly not been essential, but were
> requested repeatedly, even after the target slipped. Given that the
> timetable was set from a certain state of the checklist, it's hard to
> expect that adding new tasks would not break the planned timetable.
>
> Maybe we should have discussed the delay explicitly, but I think we were
> just working to get the bugs fixed, and anybody could have raised the
> delay issue. We're all unhappy with any delay toward 1.4.0, but that
> bigger goal of 1.4.0 really requires the essential fixes, including
> newly-discovered ones.
>
> I think it's worth pointing out that lots of open source projects
> release more often and with more known bugs. But in this group, we've
> been less willing to do that. Especially in a beta line, though, I think
> it makes sense. I don't think we've ever had so much discussion about
> when a release will be ready. My impression is that nobody in the group
> wants to consider a 1.3.5, but especially given that 1.3.4 will be
> out-of-sync across platforms, I don't think it's a bad idea, and we'd
> get lots more feedback in the meantime. Perhaps there are other
> essential bugs we don't actually know about yet.
>
> But my bigger point is, we're working cooperatively, voluntarily, and in
> our spare time, so let's be encouraging to each other.
>
> ...And discuss a revised timetable.
>
>
> Regarding the mic & speaker icons bug I mentioned, I:
>
>    * Built with experimental theme prefs turned on & clicked the
>      Default button on the Theme tab.
>    * Got rid of all my Audacity Application Data.
>    * Deleted all Audacity entries in Registry.
>
> ...and I still have the problem. But if nobody else does?
>
> I looked at the code again. The initialization code is similar to the
> Meters' icons, which show correctly, but the Device and Mixer toolbars
> are drawn very differently from Meters. I tried using Image in
> initialization instead of Bitmap (per James's comment in the Meter
> code), but it didn't help.
>
> Thanks,
> Vaughan
>
>
> James Crook wrote:
>> For background, this came out of a discussion with Gale as to what
>> should count as an essential and what shouldn't.  I came up with a list
>> of guidelines ranging from:
>>
>> * A reproducible crash is always an essential fix.
>>
>> to
>>
>> * Some user issues that are 'cheaper' to fix than to use-as-is are
>> candidates for being essentials. They need discussing on audacity-devel.
>>   Generally such issues are aim tos.
>>
>> More guidelines at:
>>
>> http://www.audacityteam.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Release_Checklist
>>
>>
>> The 'economic' argument is that if we're freeing up fifty hours of
>> support work over the lifespan of the 1.4 release, it's worth putting in
>> three hours of development effort to do so now.  From what Gale has said
>> it sounds like this could be the case with (windows) Lame installation
>> which has been costing considerably more time.
>>
>> Is it necessary to hold up the 1.3.4 release for this?  The in-house
>> trial, no, but the actual release probably yes.  To be sure that Lame
>> installation is actually easier, we probably need to test/develop it
>> with 1.3.4, i.e. it may involve small changes in 1.3.4 too.  It's up for
>> discussion, and we also need to discuss exactly what an installer would
>> need to do to be worthwhile.
>>
>> --James
>>
>>
>>
>> Gale Andrews wrote:
>>
>>> James and I believe there is a strong case in saved support time for building
>>> an executable installer for LAME for Windows users, to be available for 1.4.0.
>>> Leland was keen to have this as well. I have known up to five hours a week
>>> go on helping Windows users with this issue on the erstwhile -help list, even
>>> when they are pointed to an unzipped copy of the .dll to save them one part
>>> of the problem. I assume (with Buanzo's agreement, which is essential) we
>>> would host this on:
>>> http://lame.buanzo.com.ar/
>>>
>>> Any views on this, or ideas as to the likely size of the installer for hosting
>>> considerations?
>>>
>>>
>>> Gale
>>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
>> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
>> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
>> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
>>
>>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
>

--
David R. Sky
http://www.shellworld.net/~davidsky/


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: what's essential (was LAME Installer for Windows)

James Crook
In reply to this post by Vaughan Johnson


Vaughan Johnson wrote:
> Thanks for the update, James. It's good to have guidelines.

> ...My understanding is that we agreed (at least
> tacitly) that the Cancel, keyboard interaction, and other bugs warranted
> fixing in 1.3.4, and they previously weren't even on the checklist.

Mine too.  I think there was tacit agreement that the cancel not working
was an essential.

> Some of the added changes have certainly not been essential, but were
> requested repeatedly, even after the target slipped. Given that the
> timetable was set from a certain state of the checklist, it's hard to
> expect that adding new tasks would not break the planned timetable.

 From my perspective, the vital part is that 1.4 deserves the title of
"stable release".

When I put the proposed timetable forward, it was not so much to set the
date for 1.4 as being in 2007, as to say my views on the minimum time
needed for testing - i.e. a week of testing by people on this list
before a week testing of 1.3.4 including more people, before releasing
1.3.4 and a month of 1.3.4 on release before 1.4

> Maybe we should have discussed the delay explicitly, but I think we were
> just working to get the bugs fixed, and anybody could have raised the
> delay issue. We're all unhappy with any delay toward 1.4.0, but that
> bigger goal of 1.4.0 really requires the essential fixes, including
> newly-discovered ones.

Yes we (I?) should have discussed the delay sooner.

> I think it's worth pointing out that lots of open source projects
> release more often and with more known bugs. But in this group, we've
> been less willing to do that. Especially in a beta line, though, I think
> it makes sense. I don't think we've ever had so much discussion about
> when a release will be ready. My impression is that nobody in the group
> wants to consider a 1.3.5, but especially given that 1.3.4 will be
> out-of-sync across platforms, I don't think it's a bad idea, and we'd
> get lots more feedback in the meantime.  

Given where we are now, I'm fully in agreement with your idea of
changing our plan to be 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4.  It will cost us more in
release work than the original plan, but I think the benefit in better
feedback would make it well worthwhile.  And more importantly we'll be
able to get 1.3.4 released sooner.

What do other people think?

> Perhaps there are other essential bugs we don't actually know about yet.

Probably yes!

> But my bigger point is, we're working cooperatively, voluntarily, and in
> our spare time, so let's be encouraging to each other.

> ...And discuss a revised timetable.

Yes.


> Regarding the mic & speaker icons bug I mentioned, I:

>     * Built with experimental theme prefs turned on & clicked the
>       Default button on the Theme tab.
>     * Got rid of all my Audacity Application Data.
>     * Deleted all Audacity entries in Registry.

> ...and I still have the problem. But if nobody else does?

> I looked at the code again. The initialization code is similar to the
> Meters' icons, which show correctly, but the Device and Mixer toolbars
> are drawn very differently from Meters. I tried using Image in
> initialization instead of Bitmap (per James's comment in the Meter
> code), but it didn't help.

I'll have a look at the code and see if I can figure out how the
differences could lead to correct behaviour on some machines and not on
others.

One thought, this is your build, not the one Martyn posted, right?  It
would be worth your downloading and trying his build, just to see if it
is a build difference or a machine difference at the root of it.

Which version of wxWidgets are you linking against?  wxBitmaps and
wxBitmap buttons have undergone substantial changes and fixes between
2.6.1, 2.6.3 and 2.8.4.

--James.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: what's essential (was LAME Installer for Windows)

Gale Andrews

    | From James Crook <[hidden email]>
    | Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:48:28 +0100
    | Subject: [Audacity-devel] what's essential (was LAME Installer for
    | Windows)
    | Vaughan Johnson wrote:
    | > Thanks for the update, James. It's good to have guidelines.
    |
    | > ...My understanding is that we agreed (at least
    | > tacitly) that the Cancel, keyboard interaction, and other bugs warranted
    | > fixing in 1.3.4, and they previously weren't even on the checklist.
    |
    | Mine too.  I think there was tacit agreement that the cancel not working
    | was an essential.

The "tone" of my input to the Wiki discussion basically reflects my frustration
at the disruption caused by the discussion of DJNitrogen and related
commercial issues. That seems in the past for now, so that's great. FWIW
the "Cancel" issue only ever appeared as "Aim-to" since I actually added it
and my interpretation from the limited communication going on was that
essentials were for crashing issues and major regressions on 1.2.x (1.2.x
has the same Cancel problem). Additionally as you know most of the time
I could not actually reproduce the worst part of the issue myself, try as I
might (i.e. the inability to get back to the previously applied effect).    

    | > Some of the added changes have certainly not been essential, but were
    | > requested repeatedly, even after the target slipped. Given that the
    | > timetable was set from a certain state of the checklist, it's hard to
    | > expect that adding new tasks would not break the planned timetable.

Exactly - possibly we could have been clearer that in practice the date for the
internal releases themselves was subject to further bugs not crawling out.  But
taking the opposite view (release Betas anyway with bugs) is equally valid if
we release more frequent Beta versions.    


    | > I think it's worth pointing out that lots of open source projects
    | > release more often and with more known bugs. But in this group, we've
    | > been less willing to do that. Especially in a beta line, though, I think
    | > it makes sense. I don't think we've ever had so much discussion about
    | > when a release will be ready. My impression is that nobody in the group
    | > wants to consider a 1.3.5, but especially given that 1.3.4 will be
    | > out-of-sync across platforms, I don't think it's a bad idea, and we'd
    | > get lots more feedback in the meantime.  
    |
    | Given where we are now, I'm fully in agreement with your idea of
    | changing our plan to be 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4.  It will cost us more in
    | release work than the original plan, but I think the benefit in better
    | feedback would make it well worthwhile.  And more importantly we'll be
    | able to get 1.3.4 released sooner.
    |
    | What do other people think?

I tend to agree with Vaughan and Martyn (?) that we don't release enough
Betas, which goes back to my suggestion a while back of considering
one extreme case of that (nightly builds).  I would have expected something
like Betas every two to three months especially if we have reliable and willing
Beta testers. When you release Betas occasionally there are an awful lot of
changes to consider between one Beta and another and you can risk getting
inferior feedback because of this. If we agree more Betas might be better, do
we then do that on a pretty fixed timetable (bimonthly or whatever, and
bugs that come up while a release is being prepared go in), or should the
releases be geared more to getting feedback on a particular major change  
when it's made (so we could see more easily that the particular change had
broken something else)?


    | > Regarding the mic & speaker icons bug I mentioned, I:
    |
    | >     * Built with experimental theme prefs turned on & clicked the
    | >       Default button on the Theme tab.
    | >     * Got rid of all my Audacity Application Data.
    | >     * Deleted all Audacity entries in Registry.
    |
    | > ...and I still have the problem. But if nobody else does?
    |
    | > I looked at the code again. The initialization code is similar to the
    | > Meters' icons, which show correctly, but the Device and Mixer toolbars
    | > are drawn very differently from Meters. I tried using Image in
    | > initialization instead of Bitmap (per James's comment in the Meter
    | > code), but it didn't help.
    |
    | I'll have a look at the code and see if I can figure out how the
    | differences could lead to correct behaviour on some machines and not on
    | others.
    |
    | One thought, this is your build, not the one Martyn posted, right?  It
    | would be worth your downloading and trying his build, just to see if it
    | is a build difference or a machine difference at the root of it.

The build Martyn posted and your 1.3.4rc 0.0 has no Theme tab in
Preferences (is that what you mean Vaughan)?



Gale



Outbound message virus free.
Tested on: 10/20/2007 4:46:01 PM




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: what's essential (was LAME Installer for Windows)

James Crook


Gale Andrews wrote:

> I tend to agree with Vaughan and Martyn (?) that we don't release
> enough Betas... ...do we then do that on a pretty fixed timetable
> (bimonthly or whatever, and bugs that come up while a release is
> being prepared go in), or should the releases be geared more to
> getting feedback on a particular major change...

If we can streamline the release process so that it is not a major
effort to do a beta (and it should not be!), then we should indeed be
aiming to do an official beta every two to three months.

Even so, we should still not knowingly release a beta with significant
regressions relative to the previous version.  So - it can't be done to
a fixed timescale.  I very much like the principle that we don't want
reasons for a user not to upgrade.

With frequent betas, we also need to do release versions more
frequently.  This should be easier in future.  CVS head will be a
release version soon, and from there keeping it so that we can build a
stable version again, risky features disabled, should be mostly a matter
of good housekeeping.

My view is betas every two months, and stable builds every six months
would be a good target.  It is kind of premature to try and fix a
schedule like that for the future until we have passed the stable 1.4
hurdle and have looked at ways to make releasing stable releases easier.

Nightly build?  I'd love it, but it's a devil of a lot of work to set
up.  Realistically to do that, I think we should ask someone from
another wxWidgets based project who has got it in place for their
project to set it up for us too.  Coupled with that, we should also look
to a way of generating our linux and windows build files off the same
source.  Premake is one route to that which looks good.  Rather than
using .mak files it creates MSVC project files which are vital to
windows developers for browsing the project within MSVC.

--James.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: what's essential (was LAME Installer for Windows)

Vaughan Johnson
Administrator
In reply to this post by James Crook
Thanks, James. I agree with all you wrote.


James Crook wrote:

> Vaughan Johnson wrote:
>  
> ...
>> Maybe we should have discussed the delay explicitly, but I think we were
>> just working to get the bugs fixed, and anybody could have raised the
>> delay issue. We're all unhappy with any delay toward 1.4.0, but that
>> bigger goal of 1.4.0 really requires the essential fixes, including
>> newly-discovered ones.
>>    
>
> Yes we (I?) should have discussed the delay sooner.
>  

Didn't mean to imply you should have brought up the schedule. It was
open to all who bought into it.


> ...
>
>
>  
>> Regarding the mic & speaker icons bug I mentioned, ...
>
>  
>> I looked at the code again. The initialization code is similar to the
>> Meters' icons, which show correctly, but the Device and Mixer toolbars
>> are drawn very differently from Meters. I tried using Image in
>> initialization instead of Bitmap (per James's comment in the Meter
>> code), but it didn't help.
>>    
>
> I'll have a look at the code and see if I can figure out how the
> differences could lead to correct behaviour on some machines and not on
> others.
>  

That drawing code is done in Audacity code for Meters and using
wxStaticBitmap for the others, so I suspect it's a wxWidgets problem.
And I'm running (still!) on Win 2k Pro, so they're probably not
motivated to fix it, and maybe nor should we be.


> One thought, this is your build, not the one Martyn posted, right?  It
> would be worth your downloading and trying his build, just to see if it
> is a build difference or a machine difference at the root of it.
>  

Good idea, but I get the same results with Martyn's build.


> Which version of wxWidgets are you linking against?  wxBitmaps and
> wxBitmap buttons have undergone substantial changes and fixes between
> 2.6.1, 2.6.3 and 2.8.4.
>
>  

I'm using 2.6.3.

Thanks, James!

- Vaughan

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: what's essential (was LAME Installer for Windows)

Vaughan Johnson
Administrator
In reply to this post by David R. Sky
Thanks, David. Right on.

If the Nyquist plug-ins become sufficiently numerous, we could consider
putting them in a separate installer, so they could be on a separate
release cycle, allowing you some independence from the Audacity app
releases.

- Vaughan


David R. Sky wrote:

> Hi Vaughan and others,
>
> personally I don't see a "good enough" reason to force a release at a
> certain date. To me what's more important - "pushing" to get Audacity
> released on a certain date, or releasing a clean smoothly-working version
> of Audacity? I would definitely feel more satisfied in me the more cleanly
> it's working. And for me in particular, getting the nyquist plug-ins
> working well and in the most user-friendly way I and Gale and anyone else
> can.
>
> I've also been getting some new projects in my life such as a day-long
> conference at the provincial legislature here in British Columbia which I
> need to prepare for.
>
> I can't and don't necessarily speak for other developers here - that's my
> view.
>
> Thanks
>
> David
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Vaughan Johnson wrote:
>
>  
>> Thanks for the update, James. It's good to have guidelines.
>>
>> Maybe I'm thin-skinned, but I'm a bit disturbed at the tone of some of
>> our recent discussions. For instance, I don't think anybody "abandoned"
>> or "aborted" the schedule. My understanding is that we agreed (at least
>> tacitly) that the Cancel, keyboard interaction, and other bugs warranted
>> fixing in 1.3.4, and they previously weren't even on the checklist. Some
>> of the added changes have certainly not been essential, but were
>> requested repeatedly, even after the target slipped. Given that the
>> timetable was set from a certain state of the checklist, it's hard to
>> expect that adding new tasks would not break the planned timetable.
>>
>> Maybe we should have discussed the delay explicitly, but I think we were
>> just working to get the bugs fixed, and anybody could have raised the
>> delay issue. We're all unhappy with any delay toward 1.4.0, but that
>> bigger goal of 1.4.0 really requires the essential fixes, including
>> newly-discovered ones.
>>
>> I think it's worth pointing out that lots of open source projects
>> release more often and with more known bugs. But in this group, we've
>> been less willing to do that. Especially in a beta line, though, I think
>> it makes sense. I don't think we've ever had so much discussion about
>> when a release will be ready. My impression is that nobody in the group
>> wants to consider a 1.3.5, but especially given that 1.3.4 will be
>> out-of-sync across platforms, I don't think it's a bad idea, and we'd
>> get lots more feedback in the meantime. Perhaps there are other
>> essential bugs we don't actually know about yet.
>>
>> But my bigger point is, we're working cooperatively, voluntarily, and in
>> our spare time, so let's be encouraging to each other.
>>
>> ...And discuss a revised timetable.
>>
>>
>> Regarding the mic & speaker icons bug I mentioned, I:
>>
>>    * Built with experimental theme prefs turned on & clicked the
>>      Default button on the Theme tab.
>>    * Got rid of all my Audacity Application Data.
>>    * Deleted all Audacity entries in Registry.
>>
>> ...and I still have the problem. But if nobody else does?
>>
>> I looked at the code again. The initialization code is similar to the
>> Meters' icons, which show correctly, but the Device and Mixer toolbars
>> are drawn very differently from Meters. I tried using Image in
>> initialization instead of Bitmap (per James's comment in the Meter
>> code), but it didn't help.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vaughan
>>
>>
>> James Crook wrote:
>>    
>>> For background, this came out of a discussion with Gale as to what
>>> should count as an essential and what shouldn't.  I came up with a list
>>> of guidelines ranging from:
>>>
>>> * A reproducible crash is always an essential fix.
>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>> * Some user issues that are 'cheaper' to fix than to use-as-is are
>>> candidates for being essentials. They need discussing on audacity-devel.
>>>   Generally such issues are aim tos.
>>>
>>> More guidelines at:
>>>
>>> http://www.audacityteam.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Release_Checklist
>>>
>>>
>>> The 'economic' argument is that if we're freeing up fifty hours of
>>> support work over the lifespan of the 1.4 release, it's worth putting in
>>> three hours of development effort to do so now.  From what Gale has said
>>> it sounds like this could be the case with (windows) Lame installation
>>> which has been costing considerably more time.
>>>
>>> Is it necessary to hold up the 1.3.4 release for this?  The in-house
>>> trial, no, but the actual release probably yes.  To be sure that Lame
>>> installation is actually easier, we probably need to test/develop it
>>> with 1.3.4, i.e. it may involve small changes in 1.3.4 too.  It's up for
>>> discussion, and we also need to discuss exactly what an installer would
>>> need to do to be worthwhile.
>>>
>>> --James
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gale Andrews wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>> James and I believe there is a strong case in saved support time for building
>>>> an executable installer for LAME for Windows users, to be available for 1.4.0.
>>>> Leland was keen to have this as well. I have known up to five hours a week
>>>> go on helping Windows users with this issue on the erstwhile -help list, even
>>>> when they are pointed to an unzipped copy of the .dll to save them one part
>>>> of the problem. I assume (with Buanzo's agreement, which is essential) we
>>>> would host this on:
>>>> http://lame.buanzo.com.ar/
>>>>
>>>> Any views on this, or ideas as to the likely size of the installer for hosting
>>>> considerations?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gale
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
>>> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
>>> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
>>> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Audacity-devel mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
>> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
>> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
>> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
>>
>>    
>
>  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: what's essential (was LAME Installer for Windows)

Vaughan Johnson
Administrator
In reply to this post by Gale Andrews
Gale Andrews wrote:
>     ...
> The "tone" of my input to the Wiki discussion basically reflects my frustration
> at ...

I didn't mean to single you out. As I wrote, that was an example, lazily
culled from the latest topic. I think edginess and frustration have
characterized several recent discussions on this list and others
off-list. That works against us.



> ...  But
> taking the opposite view (release Betas anyway with bugs) is equally valid if
> we release more frequent Beta versions.    
>  

Great. I agree with your goals for beta release frequency and James's
follow-on comments.


> ...
>     |
>     | One thought, this is your build, not the one Martyn posted, right?  It
>     | would be worth your downloading and trying his build, just to see if it
>     | is a build difference or a machine difference at the root of it.
>
> The build Martyn posted and your 1.3.4rc 0.0 has no Theme tab in
> Preferences (is that what you mean Vaughan)?
>
>  

The release build has the experimental Theme tab turned off. That's why
one of the things I tried was turning it on in a build on my machine and
clicking the Default button.

Thanks, Gale.

- Vaughan



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: what's essential (was LAME Installer for Windows)

Martyn Shaw-2
In reply to this post by Vaughan Johnson
In case it's useful, here is an image of the version I posted.

http://mjshaw.at-uclan.com/image.jpg

Martyn

Vaughan Johnson wrote:
...

> Good idea, but I get the same results with Martyn's build.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: what's essential (was LAME Installer for Windows)

David R. Sky
In reply to this post by Vaughan Johnson
Hi Vaughan,

That's one idea. I'd consider most of what I've submitted so far (which
Richard has committed) as pretty well complete, with simply tiny text
modifications for such things as the error messages.

Apart from that, the sequencer is going to take some extensive
error-handling to fix it up. And I've been working slowly on a
flanger/chorus with several presets. So these ones are/will be a lot of
work to polish to my satisfaction, and they probably won't be completely
ready for a full release of Audacity. (Note I'm assuming here - Gale
mentioned some months back the present unavailability of a flanger in
Audacity.)

David

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Vaughan Johnson wrote:

> Thanks, David. Right on.
>
> If the Nyquist plug-ins become sufficiently numerous, we could consider
> putting them in a separate installer, so they could be on a separate
> release cycle, allowing you some independence from the Audacity app
> releases.
>
> - Vaughan
>
>
> David R. Sky wrote:
>> Hi Vaughan and others,
>>
>> personally I don't see a "good enough" reason to force a release at a
>> certain date. To me what's more important - "pushing" to get Audacity
>> released on a certain date, or releasing a clean smoothly-working version
>> of Audacity? I would definitely feel more satisfied in me the more cleanly
>> it's working. And for me in particular, getting the nyquist plug-ins
>> working well and in the most user-friendly way I and Gale and anyone else
>> can.
>>
>> I've also been getting some new projects in my life such as a day-long
>> conference at the provincial legislature here in British Columbia which I
>> need to prepare for.
>>
>> I can't and don't necessarily speak for other developers here - that's my
>> view.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Vaughan Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Thanks for the update, James. It's good to have guidelines.
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm thin-skinned, but I'm a bit disturbed at the tone of some of
>>> our recent discussions. For instance, I don't think anybody "abandoned"
>>> or "aborted" the schedule. My understanding is that we agreed (at least
>>> tacitly) that the Cancel, keyboard interaction, and other bugs warranted
>>> fixing in 1.3.4, and they previously weren't even on the checklist. Some
>>> of the added changes have certainly not been essential, but were
>>> requested repeatedly, even after the target slipped. Given that the
>>> timetable was set from a certain state of the checklist, it's hard to
>>> expect that adding new tasks would not break the planned timetable.
>>>
>>> Maybe we should have discussed the delay explicitly, but I think we were
>>> just working to get the bugs fixed, and anybody could have raised the
>>> delay issue. We're all unhappy with any delay toward 1.4.0, but that
>>> bigger goal of 1.4.0 really requires the essential fixes, including
>>> newly-discovered ones.
>>>
>>> I think it's worth pointing out that lots of open source projects
>>> release more often and with more known bugs. But in this group, we've
>>> been less willing to do that. Especially in a beta line, though, I think
>>> it makes sense. I don't think we've ever had so much discussion about
>>> when a release will be ready. My impression is that nobody in the group
>>> wants to consider a 1.3.5, but especially given that 1.3.4 will be
>>> out-of-sync across platforms, I don't think it's a bad idea, and we'd
>>> get lots more feedback in the meantime. Perhaps there are other
>>> essential bugs we don't actually know about yet.
>>>
>>> But my bigger point is, we're working cooperatively, voluntarily, and in
>>> our spare time, so let's be encouraging to each other.
>>>
>>> ...And discuss a revised timetable.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regarding the mic & speaker icons bug I mentioned, I:
>>>
>>>    * Built with experimental theme prefs turned on & clicked the
>>>      Default button on the Theme tab.
>>>    * Got rid of all my Audacity Application Data.
>>>    * Deleted all Audacity entries in Registry.
>>>
>>> ...and I still have the problem. But if nobody else does?
>>>
>>> I looked at the code again. The initialization code is similar to the
>>> Meters' icons, which show correctly, but the Device and Mixer toolbars
>>> are drawn very differently from Meters. I tried using Image in
>>> initialization instead of Bitmap (per James's comment in the Meter
>>> code), but it didn't help.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vaughan
>>>
>>>
>>> James Crook wrote:
>>>
>>>> For background, this came out of a discussion with Gale as to what
>>>> should count as an essential and what shouldn't.  I came up with a list
>>>> of guidelines ranging from:
>>>>
>>>> * A reproducible crash is always an essential fix.
>>>>
>>>> to
>>>>
>>>> * Some user issues that are 'cheaper' to fix than to use-as-is are
>>>> candidates for being essentials. They need discussing on audacity-devel.
>>>>   Generally such issues are aim tos.
>>>>
>>>> More guidelines at:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.audacityteam.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Release_Checklist
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The 'economic' argument is that if we're freeing up fifty hours of
>>>> support work over the lifespan of the 1.4 release, it's worth putting in
>>>> three hours of development effort to do so now.  From what Gale has said
>>>> it sounds like this could be the case with (windows) Lame installation
>>>> which has been costing considerably more time.
>>>>
>>>> Is it necessary to hold up the 1.3.4 release for this?  The in-house
>>>> trial, no, but the actual release probably yes.  To be sure that Lame
>>>> installation is actually easier, we probably need to test/develop it
>>>> with 1.3.4, i.e. it may involve small changes in 1.3.4 too.  It's up for
>>>> discussion, and we also need to discuss exactly what an installer would
>>>> need to do to be worthwhile.
>>>>
>>>> --James
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gale Andrews wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> James and I believe there is a strong case in saved support time for building
>>>>> an executable installer for LAME for Windows users, to be available for 1.4.0.
>>>>> Leland was keen to have this as well. I have known up to five hours a week
>>>>> go on helping Windows users with this issue on the erstwhile -help list, even
>>>>> when they are pointed to an unzipped copy of the .dll to save them one part
>>>>> of the problem. I assume (with Buanzo's agreement, which is essential) we
>>>>> would host this on:
>>>>> http://lame.buanzo.com.ar/
>>>>>
>>>>> Any views on this, or ideas as to the likely size of the installer for hosting
>>>>> considerations?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gale
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
>>>> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
>>>> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
>>>> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Audacity-devel mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
>>> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
>>> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
>>> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Audacity-devel mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
>

--
David R. Sky
http://www.shellworld.net/~davidsky/


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: what's essential (was LAME Installer for Windows)

Vaughan Johnson
Administrator
In reply to this post by Martyn Shaw-2
Here's what your build and mine look like on my machine:
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/files/bad_icons.jpg

- V


Martyn Shaw wrote:

> In case it's useful, here is an image of the version I posted.
>
> http://mjshaw.at-uclan.com/image.jpg
>
> Martyn
>
> Vaughan Johnson wrote:
> ...
>
>  
>> Good idea, but I get the same results with Martyn's build.
>>    
>
>  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: what's essential (was LAME Installer for Windows)

Vaughan Johnson
Administrator
In reply to this post by David R. Sky
Sounds good.
- V

David R. Sky wrote:

> Hi Vaughan,
>
> That's one idea. I'd consider most of what I've submitted so far (which
> Richard has committed) as pretty well complete, with simply tiny text
> modifications for such things as the error messages.
>
> Apart from that, the sequencer is going to take some extensive
> error-handling to fix it up. And I've been working slowly on a
> flanger/chorus with several presets. So these ones are/will be a lot of
> work to polish to my satisfaction, and they probably won't be completely
> ready for a full release of Audacity. (Note I'm assuming here - Gale
> mentioned some months back the present unavailability of a flanger in
> Audacity.)
>
> David
>
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Vaughan Johnson wrote:
>
>  
>> Thanks, David. Right on.
>>
>> If the Nyquist plug-ins become sufficiently numerous, we could consider
>> putting them in a separate installer, so they could be on a separate
>> release cycle, allowing you some independence from the Audacity app
>> releases.
>>
>> - Vaughan
>>
>>
>> David R. Sky wrote:
>>    
>>> Hi Vaughan and others,
>>>
>>> personally I don't see a "good enough" reason to force a release at a
>>> certain date. To me what's more important - "pushing" to get Audacity
>>> released on a certain date, or releasing a clean smoothly-working version
>>> of Audacity? I would definitely feel more satisfied in me the more cleanly
>>> it's working. And for me in particular, getting the nyquist plug-ins
>>> working well and in the most user-friendly way I and Gale and anyone else
>>> can.
>>>
>>> I've also been getting some new projects in my life such as a day-long
>>> conference at the provincial legislature here in British Columbia which I
>>> need to prepare for.
>>>
>>> I can't and don't necessarily speak for other developers here - that's my
>>> view.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Vaughan Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>> Thanks for the update, James. It's good to have guidelines.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I'm thin-skinned, but I'm a bit disturbed at the tone of some of
>>>> our recent discussions. For instance, I don't think anybody "abandoned"
>>>> or "aborted" the schedule. My understanding is that we agreed (at least
>>>> tacitly) that the Cancel, keyboard interaction, and other bugs warranted
>>>> fixing in 1.3.4, and they previously weren't even on the checklist. Some
>>>> of the added changes have certainly not been essential, but were
>>>> requested repeatedly, even after the target slipped. Given that the
>>>> timetable was set from a certain state of the checklist, it's hard to
>>>> expect that adding new tasks would not break the planned timetable.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we should have discussed the delay explicitly, but I think we were
>>>> just working to get the bugs fixed, and anybody could have raised the
>>>> delay issue. We're all unhappy with any delay toward 1.4.0, but that
>>>> bigger goal of 1.4.0 really requires the essential fixes, including
>>>> newly-discovered ones.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's worth pointing out that lots of open source projects
>>>> release more often and with more known bugs. But in this group, we've
>>>> been less willing to do that. Especially in a beta line, though, I think
>>>> it makes sense. I don't think we've ever had so much discussion about
>>>> when a release will be ready. My impression is that nobody in the group
>>>> wants to consider a 1.3.5, but especially given that 1.3.4 will be
>>>> out-of-sync across platforms, I don't think it's a bad idea, and we'd
>>>> get lots more feedback in the meantime. Perhaps there are other
>>>> essential bugs we don't actually know about yet.
>>>>
>>>> But my bigger point is, we're working cooperatively, voluntarily, and in
>>>> our spare time, so let's be encouraging to each other.
>>>>
>>>> ...And discuss a revised timetable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the mic & speaker icons bug I mentioned, I:
>>>>
>>>>    * Built with experimental theme prefs turned on & clicked the
>>>>      Default button on the Theme tab.
>>>>    * Got rid of all my Audacity Application Data.
>>>>    * Deleted all Audacity entries in Registry.
>>>>
>>>> ...and I still have the problem. But if nobody else does?
>>>>
>>>> I looked at the code again. The initialization code is similar to the
>>>> Meters' icons, which show correctly, but the Device and Mixer toolbars
>>>> are drawn very differently from Meters. I tried using Image in
>>>> initialization instead of Bitmap (per James's comment in the Meter
>>>> code), but it didn't help.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Vaughan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> James Crook wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>> For background, this came out of a discussion with Gale as to what
>>>>> should count as an essential and what shouldn't.  I came up with a list
>>>>> of guidelines ranging from:
>>>>>
>>>>> * A reproducible crash is always an essential fix.
>>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>> * Some user issues that are 'cheaper' to fix than to use-as-is are
>>>>> candidates for being essentials. They need discussing on audacity-devel.
>>>>>   Generally such issues are aim tos.
>>>>>
>>>>> More guidelines at:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.audacityteam.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Release_Checklist
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The 'economic' argument is that if we're freeing up fifty hours of
>>>>> support work over the lifespan of the 1.4 release, it's worth putting in
>>>>> three hours of development effort to do so now.  From what Gale has said
>>>>> it sounds like this could be the case with (windows) Lame installation
>>>>> which has been costing considerably more time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it necessary to hold up the 1.3.4 release for this?  The in-house
>>>>> trial, no, but the actual release probably yes.  To be sure that Lame
>>>>> installation is actually easier, we probably need to test/develop it
>>>>> with 1.3.4, i.e. it may involve small changes in 1.3.4 too.  It's up for
>>>>> discussion, and we also need to discuss exactly what an installer would
>>>>> need to do to be worthwhile.
>>>>>
>>>>> --James
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gale Andrews wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>> James and I believe there is a strong case in saved support time for building
>>>>>> an executable installer for LAME for Windows users, to be available for 1.4.0.
>>>>>> Leland was keen to have this as well. I have known up to five hours a week
>>>>>> go on helping Windows users with this issue on the erstwhile -help list, even
>>>>>> when they are pointed to an unzipped copy of the .dll to save them one part
>>>>>> of the problem. I assume (with Buanzo's agreement, which is essential) we
>>>>>> would host this on:
>>>>>> http://lame.buanzo.com.ar/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any views on this, or ideas as to the likely size of the installer for hosting
>>>>>> considerations?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gale
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
>>>>> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
>>>>> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
>>>>> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Audacity-devel mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
>>>> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
>>>> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
>>>> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Audacity-devel mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>      
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
>> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
>> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
>> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
>>
>>    
>
>  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: what's essential (was LAME Installer for Windows)

Martyn Shaw-2
In reply to this post by Vaughan Johnson
Vaughan

Now that's curious (and a very good way of exchanging what we are seeing).

There is clearly a difference in our machines, since it's the same exe.
  I could say yours is not right, but that wouldn't take us forward -
yours might be more typical than mine.  Hopefully James will get some
clues here.  If posting all display information and updating drivers
would be useful I can do that.  Clearly the problem is not what I
suggested before (changes I made to colours, and that you may have made
also).  I think I have a fully up-to-date Win XP Pro SP2 etc machine.
32-bit colour.

If this a detailed 'colour' issue, should we post png images, rather
than jpeg?

Martyn

Vaughan Johnson wrote:

> Here's what your build and mine look like on my machine:
> http://audacity.sourceforge.net/files/bad_icons.jpg
>
> - V
>
>
> Martyn Shaw wrote:
>> In case it's useful, here is an image of the version I posted.
>>
>> http://mjshaw.at-uclan.com/image.jpg
>>
>> Martyn
>>
>> Vaughan Johnson wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>  
>>> Good idea, but I get the same results with Martyn's build.
>>>    
>>
>>  
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

MixerToolbar and DeviceToolbar

Martyn Shaw-2
In reply to this post by Vaughan Johnson
(was Re: [Audacity-devel] what's essential (was LAME Installer for
Windows) and Re: [Audacity-devel] keyboard interaction bug in 1.3.4rc0.0)

Vaughan

I am curious about your Mixer Toolbar; you have both sliders at max in
the image, and a blank 'mInputSourceChoice' pull-down.  Does this always
happen or did you do this on purpose?  Is your M-Audio device the last
one on your Device Toolbar?  Can you set the sliders in MixerToolbar,
switch to another device, switch back and still maintain the same slider
settings?

My questions relate to my last post on the 'Re: [Audacity-devel]
keyboard interaction bug in 1.3.4rc0.0' thread.  Briefly:
I wasn't getting a 'mInputSourceChoice' pull-down on the MixerToolbar
for my on-board sound device, and the MixerToolbar sliders were getting
set to max when I changed devices from 'Microsoft Sound Mapper' to this
device.
I installed a sound card and it appeared at the end of the list on the
MixerToolbar.
Now the new one does what I just described (ie it's broken) and the
onboard one has started to work as it should.

For me, it appears that AudioIO cannot initialise a mixer.

Having said all that, you may well be seeing a different thing, since
you are at least getting a 'mInputSourceChoice' pull-down, and I think
you need a mixer to get that.  I really can't fathom it.

Any ideas?
Martyn


Vaughan Johnson wrote:

> Here's what your build and mine look like on my machine:
> http://audacity.sourceforge.net/files/bad_icons.jpg
>
> - V
>
>
> Martyn Shaw wrote:
>> In case it's useful, here is an image of the version I posted.
>>
>> http://mjshaw.at-uclan.com/image.jpg
>>
>> Martyn
>>
>> Vaughan Johnson wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>  
>>> Good idea, but I get the same results with Martyn's build.
>>>    
>>
>>  
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: what's essential (was LAME Installer for Windows)

Gale Andrews
In reply to this post by James Crook

    | From James Crook <[hidden email]>
    | Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:05:07 +0100
    | Subject: [Audacity-devel] what's essential (was LAME Installer for
    | Windows)
    | My view is betas every two months, and stable builds every six months
    | would be a good target.  

Something like that (with the caveat that it can't be a fixed pre-announced
schedule in case a major problem is found at intended release time), would
I'd think find wide user approval, and it seems none of us have any
reservations. It gives stable users more interest (so potentially gives us
more feedback on recently added features), and helps keep our motivation
levels up.

Have we ever considered any kind of update checker in Audacity, which are
very common in Windows programs at any rate, now that issues with getting
an internet connection in Audacity seem to be easier? I'm often surprised by
the proportion of users who say have 1.2.2 and before when they write to us,
plus of course the many who still have 1.2.4 (I exclude those who have an
outdated copy via a hardware bundle).  Should we do something on:
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

to move the announcements list subscription box further up the page?


Gale        



Outbound message virus free.
Tested on: 10/22/2007 1:40:49 AM




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: what's essential (was LAME Installer for Windows)

Vaughan Johnson
Administrator
In reply to this post by Martyn Shaw-2
Thanks, Martyn. Not sure what you mean by detailed 'colour' issue, but I
tried different color depths, and it's similar for all settings
(although Audacity looks lousy overall in 256 colors).

- V

Martyn Shaw wrote:

> Vaughan
>
> Now that's curious (and a very good way of exchanging what we are seeing).
>
> There is clearly a difference in our machines, since it's the same exe.
>   I could say yours is not right, but that wouldn't take us forward -
> yours might be more typical than mine.  Hopefully James will get some
> clues here.  If posting all display information and updating drivers
> would be useful I can do that.  Clearly the problem is not what I
> suggested before (changes I made to colours, and that you may have made
> also).  I think I have a fully up-to-date Win XP Pro SP2 etc machine.
> 32-bit colour.
>
> If this a detailed 'colour' issue, should we post png images, rather
> than jpeg?
>
> Martyn
>
> Vaughan Johnson wrote:
>  
>> Here's what your build and mine look like on my machine:
>> http://audacity.sourceforge.net/files/bad_icons.jpg
>>
>> - V
>>
>>
>> Martyn Shaw wrote:
>>    
>>> In case it's useful, here is an image of the version I posted.
>>>
>>> http://mjshaw.at-uclan.com/image.jpg
>>>
>>> Martyn
>>>
>>> Vaughan Johnson wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>  
>>>      
>>>> Good idea, but I get the same results with Martyn's build.
>>>>    
>>>>        
>>>  
>>>      
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
>
>  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MixerToolbar and DeviceToolbar

Vaughan Johnson
Administrator
In reply to this post by Martyn Shaw-2
Martyn Shaw wrote:
> (was Re: [Audacity-devel] what's essential (was LAME Installer for
> Windows) and Re: [Audacity-devel] keyboard interaction bug in 1.3.4rc0.0)
>
> Vaughan
>
> I am curious about your Mixer Toolbar; you have both sliders at max in
> the image, and a blank 'mInputSourceChoice' pull-down.  Does this always
> happen or did you do this on purpose?  

That's the way it came up by default. The only entry in the menu is
"Line In".

> Is your M-Audio device the last
> one on your Device Toolbar?  Can you set the sliders in MixerToolbar,
> switch to another device, switch back and still maintain the same slider
> settings?
>  

I get several "devices" from the one M-Audio driver. Worth noting that
the driver supplies its own mixer/routing board, and for previous
versions of Audacity, I got nothing in the mixer toolbar pull-down. It's
a little bit unusual driver, I think.

If I switch to the last  input "device", the M-Audio Monitor Mixer, the
mixer toolbar pull-down has only "Wave".

When I switch back and forth for devices, the output level is
remembered, but the input never is, and the mixer toolbar pull-down
always reverts to no selection.

Both sliders affect the audio levels correctly, even when the input
pull-down is blank.


> My questions relate to my last post on the 'Re: [Audacity-devel]
> keyboard interaction bug in 1.3.4rc0.0' thread.  Briefly:
> I wasn't getting a 'mInputSourceChoice' pull-down on the MixerToolbar
> for my on-board sound device, and the MixerToolbar sliders were getting
> set to max when I changed devices from 'Microsoft Sound Mapper' to this
> device.
> I installed a sound card and it appeared at the end of the list on the
> MixerToolbar.
> Now the new one does what I just described (ie it's broken) and the
> onboard one has started to work as it should.
>
> For me, it appears that AudioIO cannot initialise a mixer.
>
> Having said all that, you may well be seeing a different thing, since
> you are at least getting a 'mInputSourceChoice' pull-down, and I think
> you need a mixer to get that.  I really can't fathom it.
>
> Any ideas?
> Martyn
>
>  

Not really. Long ago I just decided to just use the M-Audio mixer
instead of the Audacity one. I was just trying to test thoroughly, in
making the device and mixer toolbars visible.

- Vaughan



> Vaughan Johnson wrote:
>  
>> Here's what your build and mine look like on my machine:
>> http://audacity.sourceforge.net/files/bad_icons.jpg
>>
>> - V
>>
>>
>> Martyn Shaw wrote:
>>    
>>> In case it's useful, here is an image of the version I posted.
>>>
>>> http://mjshaw.at-uclan.com/image.jpg
>>>
>>> Martyn
>>>
>>> Vaughan Johnson wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>  
>>>      
>>>> Good idea, but I get the same results with Martyn's build.
>>>>    
>>>>        
>>>  
>>>      
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
>
>  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
12
Loading...