Plans for jc12 - banish the ghosts.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
35 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Plans for jc12 - banish the ghosts.

James Crook
OK.

Feedback from Peter, Steve too agreeing with Bill about not having
absent plug-ins in the menu.

Bill wrote:

> I think it makes us look a bit amateurish to provide menu choices for plugins that do not exist.
I agree too, which is why I created 1587.


Despite Gale's opinion/arguments then, I am going to spin a jc12 that fixes

http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1587 - already have the
fix.
http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1580

and addresses the main problem of

http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453

This IS the fix to ghosts, NOT a fix to legitimate duplicates from
multiple installations.  No .pkg will be added (that would be a ton of
development and test work, we don't have a clear picture of what we want
for it so discussion too, and does not solve ghosts on win/linux).  No
add/remove dialog update (again needs discussion about what we want, and
would need significant change to the manual).



So doing jc12 is a reversal of my reversal.  We're not renaming jc11 as
RC1.  Expecting to progress from jc12 to RC1 instead.


Gale, can you now make the change to the manual that you want to make,
and let me know when you have, so that I can pull a new manual, and
build jc12?



--James.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Plans for jc12 - banish the ghosts.

Gale
Administrator
On 6 February 2017 at 14:06, James Crook <[hidden email]> wrote:
> OK.
>
> Feedback from Peter, Steve too agreeing with Bill about not having
> absent plug-ins in the menu.
>
> Bill wrote:
>
>> I think it makes us look a bit amateurish to provide menu choices for plugins that do not exist.
> I agree too, which is why I created 1587.

It is also amateurish in my opinion to silently remove plugins that
were accidentally removed, leaving the user clueless.

Of course it is fine to silently remove no longer shipped plugins from
old versions of Audacity, but from what you previously said you don't
want to do that, either in Audacity or in a PKG.

I know a PKG does not solve Linux or Windows (they have their own
installation methods), and I see below you say making a PKG is a
lot of work.

If we did not silently remove no longer available plugins then as I said,
I would probably change my mind, especially given others don't want
absentee plugins in the menus..

So would you consider tackling that objection? I consider it a "bug"
created by the fix.


> Despite Gale's opinion/arguments

I don't especially like or condone what happens to upgraders on Mac, but
I am also concerned at yet further delay. Where will it end? Getting a
release out is looking to me like P0 now, trumping all other bugs.

I recommend deciding we don't like some behaviour in good time, so we
don't have this extra delay.


> then, I am going to spin a jc12 that fixes
>
> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1587 - already have the
> fix.

As I understand it, that fix does not target the problem effects on Mac,
but all non-existent Nyquist effects on all platforms. Is that correct? If so,
what about other effect types that may have a missing plugin, like VST
or AU? Is the plan going forward to always have that inconsistency and
to thus show "ghosts" for those, giving an unhelpful error message?


> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1580
>
> and addresses the main problem of
>
> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453

What exactly does that do?

Clicking the link in the bug 1453 report brings me to a commit:

"Bug 1587: Fix removes ghost Nyquist effects from the effects menu and
 generators from generate menu."

So are we showing "ghosts" for the five shipped Nyquist analysis effects?

I see changes for files affecting all plugin types except AU. What are those
changes doing?  You say in the bug report comment "Nyquist (and
built-ins) only amelioration."  Does this then remove the ghost for Hard
Limiter, which is neither built-in or Nyquist?


> This IS the fix to ghosts, NOT a fix to legitimate duplicates from
> multiple installations.  No .pkg will be added (that would be a ton of
> development and test work, we don't have a clear picture of what we want
> for it so discussion too, and does not solve ghosts on win/linux).

Well that is OK by me, if we are now also doing something to remove
Hard Limiter and Leveler on all platforms. I was in favour of that.


> add/remove dialog update (again needs discussion about what we want, and
> would need significant change to the manual).
>
> So doing jc12 is a reversal of my reversal.  We're not renaming jc11 as
> RC1.  Expecting to progress from jc12 to RC1 instead.
>
>
> Gale, can you now make the change to the manual that you want to make,
> and let me know when you have, so that I can pull a new manual, and
> build jc12?

I'm afraid not, until I've built and tested on all three platforms. As above,
I don't understand what your changes do, so I can't document them.



Gale

.


>
>
> --James.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Plans for jc12 - banish the ghosts.

Bill Wharrie

> On 2017/02/06, at 12:23 PM, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 14:06, James Crook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> OK.
>>
>> Feedback from Peter, Steve too agreeing with Bill about not having
>> absent plug-ins in the menu.
>>
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>> I think it makes us look a bit amateurish to provide menu choices for plugins that do not exist.
>> I agree too, which is why I created 1587.
>
> It is also amateurish in my opinion to silently remove plugins that
> were accidentally removed, leaving the user clueless.

You assume that they have been accidentally removed. What if they were deliberately removed? How can we tell?

All that should happen with this fix is that an upgrader will not see menu items for non-existent effects. On Mac this applies only to effects that may have been in the plug-ins folder inside the Audacity folder inside Applications. System-wide or user-wide plug-ins (that is, in the proper system locations) will not be affected. IMO, for the vast majority of upgraders, this will be totally transparent - they will see the same set of Nyquist effects. Only those who have added their own effects to the plug-ins folder will see a loss of effects, and this was always the case if they over-wrote or deleted their old Audacity folder during or before upgrading.

>
> Of course it is fine to silently remove no longer shipped plugins from
> old versions of Audacity, but from what you previously said you don't
> want to do that, either in Audacity or in a PKG.
>
> I know a PKG does not solve Linux or Windows (they have their own
> installation methods), and I see below you say making a PKG is a
> lot of work.
>
> If we did not silently remove no longer available plugins then as I said,
> I would probably change my mind, especially given others don't want
> absentee plugins in the menus..
>
> So would you consider tackling that objection? I consider it a "bug"
> created by the fix.
>
>
>> Despite Gale's opinion/arguments
>
> I don't especially like or condone what happens to upgraders on Mac, but
> I am also concerned at yet further delay. Where will it end? Getting a
> release out is looking to me like P0 now, trumping all other bugs.

I thought I made it clear that I did not want this to unreasonably delay release of 2.1.3.

I also said I’m OK with the duplicate working effects (only because dealing with that issue is likely to be more complex and delay release even further).

>
> I recommend deciding we don't like some behaviour in good time, so we
> don't have this extra delay.

Sorry for raising this at the last minute. Because of my usual working arrangement with multiple versions of Audacity on my machine I didn’t see the issue until I did a thorough checkout of jc11.

>
>
>> then, I am going to spin a jc12 that fixes
>>
>> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1587 - already have the
>> fix.
>
> As I understand it, that fix does not target the problem effects on Mac,
> but all non-existent Nyquist effects on all platforms. Is that correct? If so,
> what about other effect types that may have a missing plugin, like VST
> or AU? Is the plan going forward to always have that inconsistency and
> to thus show "ghosts" for those, giving an unhelpful error message?

As I said above, AU and VST should not have ghost effects in the menu after installation.

I’m talking about the upgrade from 2.1.2 to 2.1.3. The larger discussion of when and how to update the contents of the menus is something I’ve always intended for after 2.1.3.

— Bill

>
>
>> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1580
>>
>> and addresses the main problem of
>>
>> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453
>
> What exactly does that do?
>
> Clicking the link in the bug 1453 report brings me to a commit:
>
> "Bug 1587: Fix removes ghost Nyquist effects from the effects menu and
> generators from generate menu."
>
> So are we showing "ghosts" for the five shipped Nyquist analysis effects?
>
> I see changes for files affecting all plugin types except AU. What are those
> changes doing?  You say in the bug report comment "Nyquist (and
> built-ins) only amelioration."  Does this then remove the ghost for Hard
> Limiter, which is neither built-in or Nyquist?
>
>
>> This IS the fix to ghosts, NOT a fix to legitimate duplicates from
>> multiple installations.  No .pkg will be added (that would be a ton of
>> development and test work, we don't have a clear picture of what we want
>> for it so discussion too, and does not solve ghosts on win/linux).
>
> Well that is OK by me, if we are now also doing something to remove
> Hard Limiter and Leveler on all platforms. I was in favour of that.
>
>
>> add/remove dialog update (again needs discussion about what we want, and
>> would need significant change to the manual).
>>
>> So doing jc12 is a reversal of my reversal.  We're not renaming jc11 as
>> RC1.  Expecting to progress from jc12 to RC1 instead.
>>
>>
>> Gale, can you now make the change to the manual that you want to make,
>> and let me know when you have, so that I can pull a new manual, and
>> build jc12?
>
> I'm afraid not, until I've built and tested on all three platforms. As above,
> I don't understand what your changes do, so I can't document them.
>
>
>
> Gale
>
> .
>
>
>>
>>
>> --James.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Plans for jc12 - banish the ghosts.

Stevethefiddle


On 6 February 2017 at 18:08, Bill Wharrie <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2017/02/06, at 12:23 PM, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 14:06, James Crook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> OK.
>>
>> Feedback from Peter, Steve too agreeing with Bill about not having
>> absent plug-ins in the menu.
>>
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>> I think it makes us look a bit amateurish to provide menu choices for plugins that do not exist.
>> I agree too, which is why I created 1587.
>
> It is also amateurish in my opinion to silently remove plugins that
> were accidentally removed, leaving the user clueless.

Gale, what do you mean "accidentally removed"?
If the user removes a plug-in, then is it not better that Audacity recognises the fact?

Steve

 

You assume that they have been accidentally removed. What if they were deliberately removed? How can we tell?

All that should happen with this fix is that an upgrader will not see menu items for non-existent effects. On Mac this applies only to effects that may have been in the plug-ins folder inside the Audacity folder inside Applications. System-wide or user-wide plug-ins (that is, in the proper system locations) will not be affected. IMO, for the vast majority of upgraders, this will be totally transparent - they will see the same set of Nyquist effects. Only those who have added their own effects to the plug-ins folder will see a loss of effects, and this was always the case if they over-wrote or deleted their old Audacity folder during or before upgrading.

>
> Of course it is fine to silently remove no longer shipped plugins from
> old versions of Audacity, but from what you previously said you don't
> want to do that, either in Audacity or in a PKG.
>
> I know a PKG does not solve Linux or Windows (they have their own
> installation methods), and I see below you say making a PKG is a
> lot of work.
>
> If we did not silently remove no longer available plugins then as I said,
> I would probably change my mind, especially given others don't want
> absentee plugins in the menus..
>
> So would you consider tackling that objection? I consider it a "bug"
> created by the fix.
>
>
>> Despite Gale's opinion/arguments
>
> I don't especially like or condone what happens to upgraders on Mac, but
> I am also concerned at yet further delay. Where will it end? Getting a
> release out is looking to me like P0 now, trumping all other bugs.

I thought I made it clear that I did not want this to unreasonably delay release of 2.1.3.

I also said I’m OK with the duplicate working effects (only because dealing with that issue is likely to be more complex and delay release even further).

>
> I recommend deciding we don't like some behaviour in good time, so we
> don't have this extra delay.

Sorry for raising this at the last minute. Because of my usual working arrangement with multiple versions of Audacity on my machine I didn’t see the issue until I did a thorough checkout of jc11.

>
>
>> then, I am going to spin a jc12 that fixes
>>
>> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1587 - already have the
>> fix.
>
> As I understand it, that fix does not target the problem effects on Mac,
> but all non-existent Nyquist effects on all platforms. Is that correct? If so,
> what about other effect types that may have a missing plugin, like VST
> or AU? Is the plan going forward to always have that inconsistency and
> to thus show "ghosts" for those, giving an unhelpful error message?

As I said above, AU and VST should not have ghost effects in the menu after installation.

I’m talking about the upgrade from 2.1.2 to 2.1.3. The larger discussion of when and how to update the contents of the menus is something I’ve always intended for after 2.1.3.

— Bill

>
>
>> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1580
>>
>> and addresses the main problem of
>>
>> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453
>
> What exactly does that do?
>
> Clicking the link in the bug 1453 report brings me to a commit:
>
> "Bug 1587: Fix removes ghost Nyquist effects from the effects menu and
> generators from generate menu."
>
> So are we showing "ghosts" for the five shipped Nyquist analysis effects?
>
> I see changes for files affecting all plugin types except AU. What are those
> changes doing?  You say in the bug report comment "Nyquist (and
> built-ins) only amelioration."  Does this then remove the ghost for Hard
> Limiter, which is neither built-in or Nyquist?
>
>
>> This IS the fix to ghosts, NOT a fix to legitimate duplicates from
>> multiple installations.  No .pkg will be added (that would be a ton of
>> development and test work, we don't have a clear picture of what we want
>> for it so discussion too, and does not solve ghosts on win/linux).
>
> Well that is OK by me, if we are now also doing something to remove
> Hard Limiter and Leveler on all platforms. I was in favour of that.
>
>
>> add/remove dialog update (again needs discussion about what we want, and
>> would need significant change to the manual).
>>
>> So doing jc12 is a reversal of my reversal.  We're not renaming jc11 as
>> RC1.  Expecting to progress from jc12 to RC1 instead.
>>
>>
>> Gale, can you now make the change to the manual that you want to make,
>> and let me know when you have, so that I can pull a new manual, and
>> build jc12?
>
> I'm afraid not, until I've built and tested on all three platforms. As above,
> I don't understand what your changes do, so I can't document them.
>
>
>
> Gale
>
> .
>
>
>>
>>
>> --James.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Plans for jc12 - banish the ghosts.

James Crook
In reply to this post by Gale
On 2/6/2017 5:23 PM, Gale Andrews wrote:
On 6 February 2017 at 14:06, James Crook [hidden email] wrote:
OK.

Feedback from Peter, Steve too agreeing with Bill about not having
absent plug-ins in the menu.

Bill wrote:

I think it makes us look a bit amateurish to provide menu choices for plugins that do not exist.
I agree too, which is why I created 1587.
It is also amateurish in my opinion to silently remove plugins that
were accidentally removed, leaving the user clueless.
I hear you, but if I've understood right, Bill, Peter, Steve and me disagree with you here.

Of course it is fine to silently remove no longer shipped plugins from
old versions of Audacity, but from what you previously said you don't
want to do that, either in Audacity or in a PKG.
That is a different, less good solution, in my eyes.

I know a PKG does not solve Linux or Windows (they have their own
installation methods), and I see below you say making a PKG is a
lot of work.
Yes.  Two of the reasons not to do it via pkg. 

If we did not silently remove no longer available plugins then as I said,
I would probably change my mind, especially given others don't want
absentee plugins in the menus..
I disagree that it is a problem.  There are many things we do in Audacity without asking the user first, that follow from other actions, and they make for a better experience.

So would you consider tackling that objection? I consider it a "bug"
created by the fix.
I think if you enter 'silent removal of ghost plugins from menu' as a bug I will lobby for you to agree that it is INVALID, and if not, I'll call for a vote.  Meanwhile, it takes on whatever rating you give it.  E.g. if P3 it gets a release note, even though I disagree.


Despite Gale's opinion/arguments
I don't especially like or condone what happens to upgraders on Mac, but
I am also concerned at yet further delay. Where will it end? Getting a
release out is looking to me like P0 now, trumping all other bugs.
I wasn't keen on tackling 1580  for the same reason, but have done, since I paused for 1587. 

I recommend deciding we don't like some behaviour in good time, so we
don't have this extra delay.
So do I.  However until Bill's report I was NOT AWARE that we had duplicates for all Nyquist plug-ins for upgraders.  When I ran jc11 I did not see any problem.  I mistakenly thought 1453 related only to Nyquist effects that differed between versions, not all nyquist effects.



then, I am going to spin a jc12 that fixes

http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1587 - already have the
fix.
As I understand it, that fix does not target the problem effects on Mac,
but all non-existent Nyquist effects on all platforms. Is that correct? 
Yes.
If so, what about other effect types that may have a missing plugin, like VST
or AU? 
There is the competing pull that the test takes time proportional to the number of effects.  It is acceptable cost for Nyquist as there are not hundreds of Nyquist effects.  Plus they are the ones causing most of the problem currently.

Is the plan going forward to always have that inconsistency and
to thus show "ghosts" for those, giving an unhelpful error message?
Properly testing presence of binary effects (dll/so) requires opening the effect to see what is in there and is slow.  If we can find a fast way, I'd like no ghosts.  If we can't find a fast way, then I'd accept compromises.  As minimum a helpful error message for a ghost. 



http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1580

and addresses the main problem of

http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453
What exactly does that do?

Clicking the link in the bug 1453 report brings me to a commit:

"Bug 1587: Fix removes ghost Nyquist effects from the effects menu and
 generators from generate menu."

So are we showing "ghosts" for the five shipped Nyquist analysis effects?
Analysis effects are fixed too.  Should have said.

I see changes for files affecting all plugin types except AU. What are those
changes doing?  
If you look at the code you will see there is a new parameter for fast testing of plug-in validity.  Nyquist and built in currently have fast testing enabled.  Others don't.  All need the extra flag.

If we can later find fast ways to test the others, we will add them.

You say in the bug report comment "Nyquist (and
built-ins) only amelioration."  Does this then remove the ghost for Hard
Limiter, which is neither built-in or Nyquist?
SC4 and Hard Limiter could ghost.  I think users who have them will have deliberately enabled them in 2.1.2 so will be familiar with add/remove.  Not so for Nyquist.



      
This IS the fix to ghosts, NOT a fix to legitimate duplicates from
multiple installations.  No .pkg will be added (that would be a ton of
development and test work, we don't have a clear picture of what we want
for it so discussion too, and does not solve ghosts on win/linux).
Well that is OK by me, if we are now also doing something to remove
Hard Limiter and Leveler on all platforms. I was in favour of that.

Hard Limiter was not shipped with 2.1.1 or 2.1.2, so is not a new problem.
Leveler was built-in and so will be removed (all platforms).



add/remove dialog update (again needs discussion about what we want, and
would need significant change to the manual).

So doing jc12 is a reversal of my reversal.  We're not renaming jc11 as
RC1.  Expecting to progress from jc12 to RC1 instead.



Gale, can you now make the change to the manual that you want to make,
and let me know when you have, so that I can pull a new manual, and
build jc12?
I'm afraid not, until I've built and tested on all three platforms. As above,
I don't understand what your changes do, so I can't document them.
Understood.

I therefore changed the wording in the manual myself to:

Installing and updating Audacity on Mac OS X....
"If you had a previous installation of Audacity, its shipped Nyquist plugins were in the "plug-ins" folder where Audacity was installed. Because Audacity now comes with the shipped plugins bundled inside the application, some plugins from previous Audacity may appear as a second copy of the plugin in the Generate, Effect or Analyze Menu. You can clean these duplicates up by deleting pluginregistry.cfg in ~/Library/Application Support/audacity/."

I.e. the -> some, will-> may

This is at least as correct as the text which we previously thought was OK and covers the new behaviour.  The old text didn't mention SC4, which appears with the Nyquist plug-ins in the menu, but it should be clear enough for those users who did enable it.

If you're aware of any other likely new problems with the manual, let me know.  I am guessing this means that the manual is now at least as good to go for jc12 as it was previously for jc11. 


--James.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Plans for jc12 - banish the ghosts.

Gale
Administrator
In reply to this post by Stevethefiddle
On 6 February 2017 at 18:34, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 18:08, Bill Wharrie <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 2017/02/06, at 12:23 PM, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 6 February 2017 at 14:06, James Crook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> OK.
>> >>
>> >> Feedback from Peter, Steve too agreeing with Bill about not having
>> >> absent plug-ins in the menu.
>> >>
>> >> Bill wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I think it makes us look a bit amateurish to provide menu choices for
>> >>> plugins that do not exist.
>> >> I agree too, which is why I created 1587.
>> >
>> > It is also amateurish in my opinion to silently remove plugins that
>> > were accidentally removed, leaving the user clueless.
>
> Gale, what do you mean "accidentally removed"?

I described that before, but I mean things like rename a folder the
effect is in, move the plugin to a path that looks supported but isn't,
such as Program Files\VST,  or move Nyquist plugins inside a
subfolder in a supported path.


> If the user removes a plug-in, then is it not better that Audacity
> recognises the fact?

Yes, and we have to recognise it, as Bill says, for deliberately removed
plugins too.

The difference is that the user who deliberately removed plugins doesn't
need any prompt that the effect has been removed from the menu. The
user who made an honest mistake does, IMO.

It seems from the other thread that Steve agrees with me that if we check
for existence on launch then remove missing plugins that we should
inform the user.

As I said in that thread, that would suit me fine.



Gale


>> You assume that they have been accidentally removed. What if they were
>> deliberately removed? How can we tell?
>>
>> All that should happen with this fix is that an upgrader will not see menu
>> items for non-existent effects. On Mac this applies only to effects that may
>> have been in the plug-ins folder inside the Audacity folder inside
>> Applications. System-wide or user-wide plug-ins (that is, in the proper
>> system locations) will not be affected. IMO, for the vast majority of
>> upgraders, this will be totally transparent - they will see the same set of
>> Nyquist effects. Only those who have added their own effects to the plug-ins
>> folder will see a loss of effects, and this was always the case if they
>> over-wrote or deleted their old Audacity folder during or before upgrading.
>>
>> >
>> > Of course it is fine to silently remove no longer shipped plugins from
>> > old versions of Audacity, but from what you previously said you don't
>> > want to do that, either in Audacity or in a PKG.
>> >
>> > I know a PKG does not solve Linux or Windows (they have their own
>> > installation methods), and I see below you say making a PKG is a
>> > lot of work.
>> >
>> > If we did not silently remove no longer available plugins then as I
>> > said,
>> > I would probably change my mind, especially given others don't want
>> > absentee plugins in the menus..
>> >
>> > So would you consider tackling that objection? I consider it a "bug"
>> > created by the fix.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Despite Gale's opinion/arguments
>> >
>> > I don't especially like or condone what happens to upgraders on Mac, but
>> > I am also concerned at yet further delay. Where will it end? Getting a
>> > release out is looking to me like P0 now, trumping all other bugs.
>>
>> I thought I made it clear that I did not want this to unreasonably delay
>> release of 2.1.3.
>>
>> I also said I’m OK with the duplicate working effects (only because
>> dealing with that issue is likely to be more complex and delay release even
>> further).
>>
>> >
>> > I recommend deciding we don't like some behaviour in good time, so we
>> > don't have this extra delay.
>>
>> Sorry for raising this at the last minute. Because of my usual working
>> arrangement with multiple versions of Audacity on my machine I didn’t see
>> the issue until I did a thorough checkout of jc11.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> then, I am going to spin a jc12 that fixes
>> >>
>> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1587 - already have
>> >> the
>> >> fix.
>> >
>> > As I understand it, that fix does not target the problem effects on Mac,
>> > but all non-existent Nyquist effects on all platforms. Is that correct?
>> > If so,
>> > what about other effect types that may have a missing plugin, like VST
>> > or AU? Is the plan going forward to always have that inconsistency and
>> > to thus show "ghosts" for those, giving an unhelpful error message?
>>
>> As I said above, AU and VST should not have ghost effects in the menu
>> after installation.
>>
>> I’m talking about the upgrade from 2.1.2 to 2.1.3. The larger discussion
>> of when and how to update the contents of the menus is something I’ve always
>> intended for after 2.1.3.
>>
>> — Bill
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1580
>> >>
>> >> and addresses the main problem of
>> >>
>> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453
>> >
>> > What exactly does that do?
>> >
>> > Clicking the link in the bug 1453 report brings me to a commit:
>> >
>> > "Bug 1587: Fix removes ghost Nyquist effects from the effects menu and
>> > generators from generate menu."
>> >
>> > So are we showing "ghosts" for the five shipped Nyquist analysis
>> > effects?
>> >
>> > I see changes for files affecting all plugin types except AU. What are
>> > those
>> > changes doing?  You say in the bug report comment "Nyquist (and
>> > built-ins) only amelioration."  Does this then remove the ghost for Hard
>> > Limiter, which is neither built-in or Nyquist?
>> >
>> >
>> >> This IS the fix to ghosts, NOT a fix to legitimate duplicates from
>> >> multiple installations.  No .pkg will be added (that would be a ton of
>> >> development and test work, we don't have a clear picture of what we
>> >> want
>> >> for it so discussion too, and does not solve ghosts on win/linux).
>> >
>> > Well that is OK by me, if we are now also doing something to remove
>> > Hard Limiter and Leveler on all platforms. I was in favour of that.
>> >
>> >
>> >> add/remove dialog update (again needs discussion about what we want,
>> >> and
>> >> would need significant change to the manual).
>> >>
>> >> So doing jc12 is a reversal of my reversal.  We're not renaming jc11 as
>> >> RC1.  Expecting to progress from jc12 to RC1 instead.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Gale, can you now make the change to the manual that you want to make,
>> >> and let me know when you have, so that I can pull a new manual, and
>> >> build jc12?
>> >
>> > I'm afraid not, until I've built and tested on all three platforms. As
>> > above,
>> > I don't understand what your changes do, so I can't document them.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Gale
>> >
>> > .
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --James.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> > engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Audacity-quality mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Plans for jc12 - banish the ghosts.

Gale
Administrator
In reply to this post by Bill Wharrie
On 6 February 2017 at 18:08, Bill Wharrie <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>> On 2017/02/06, at 12:23 PM, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 6 February 2017 at 14:06, James Crook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> Feedback from Peter, Steve too agreeing with Bill about not having
>>> absent plug-ins in the menu.
>>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think it makes us look a bit amateurish to provide menu choices for plugins that do not exist.
>>> I agree too, which is why I created 1587.
>>
>> It is also amateurish in my opinion to silently remove plugins that
>> were accidentally removed, leaving the user clueless.
>
> You assume that they have been accidentally removed. What if they were deliberately removed? How can we tell?
>
> All that should happen with this fix is that an upgrader will not see menu items for non-existent effects. On Mac this applies only to effects that may have been in the plug-ins folder inside the Audacity folder inside Applications. System-wide or user-wide plug-ins (that is, in the proper system locations) will not be affected. IMO, for the vast majority of upgraders, this will be totally transparent - they will see the same set of Nyquist effects. Only those who have added their own effects to the plug-ins folder will see a loss of effects

I hope that won't happen, if the user has not deleted them. It should be a
legitimate duplicate, shouldn't it? I already added a reminder in the Manual
to retrieve any optional plugins in the old Audacity installation folder before
deleting it.


> and this was always the case if they over-wrote or deleted their old Audacity folder
> during or before upgrading.
>
>>
>> Of course it is fine to silently remove no longer shipped plugins from
>> old versions of Audacity, but from what you previously said you don't
>> want to do that, either in Audacity or in a PKG.
>>
>> I know a PKG does not solve Linux or Windows (they have their own
>> installation methods), and I see below you say making a PKG is a
>> lot of work.
>>
>> If we did not silently remove no longer available plugins then as I said,
>> I would probably change my mind, especially given others don't want
>> absentee plugins in the menus..
>>
>> So would you consider tackling that objection? I consider it a "bug"
>> created by the fix.
>>
>>
>>> Despite Gale's opinion/arguments
>>
>> I don't especially like or condone what happens to upgraders on Mac, but
>> I am also concerned at yet further delay. Where will it end? Getting a
>> release out is looking to me like P0 now, trumping all other bugs.
>
> I thought I made it clear that I did not want this to unreasonably delay release of 2.1.3.
>
> I also said I’m OK with the duplicate working effects (only because dealing with that issue is likely to be more complex and delay release even further).
>
>>
>> I recommend deciding we don't like some behaviour in good time, so we
>> don't have this extra delay.
>
> Sorry for raising this at the last minute. Because of my usual working arrangement with multiple versions of Audacity on my machine I didn’t see the issue until I did a thorough checkout of jc11.

No need at all to apologize, Bill. Clearly I was not specific enough when
I raised the problem.


Gale


>>
>>> then, I am going to spin a jc12 that fixes
>>>
>>> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1587 - already have the
>>> fix.
>>
>> As I understand it, that fix does not target the problem effects on Mac,
>> but all non-existent Nyquist effects on all platforms. Is that correct? If so,
>> what about other effect types that may have a missing plugin, like VST
>> or AU? Is the plan going forward to always have that inconsistency and
>> to thus show "ghosts" for those, giving an unhelpful error message?
>
> As I said above, AU and VST should not have ghost effects in the menu after installation.
>
> I’m talking about the upgrade from 2.1.2 to 2.1.3. The larger discussion of when and how to update the contents of the menus is something I’ve always intended for after 2.1.3.
>
> — Bill
>
>>
>>
>>> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1580
>>>
>>> and addresses the main problem of
>>>
>>> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453
>>
>> What exactly does that do?
>>
>> Clicking the link in the bug 1453 report brings me to a commit:
>>
>> "Bug 1587: Fix removes ghost Nyquist effects from the effects menu and
>> generators from generate menu."
>>
>> So are we showing "ghosts" for the five shipped Nyquist analysis effects?
>>
>> I see changes for files affecting all plugin types except AU. What are those
>> changes doing?  You say in the bug report comment "Nyquist (and
>> built-ins) only amelioration."  Does this then remove the ghost for Hard
>> Limiter, which is neither built-in or Nyquist?
>>
>>
>>> This IS the fix to ghosts, NOT a fix to legitimate duplicates from
>>> multiple installations.  No .pkg will be added (that would be a ton of
>>> development and test work, we don't have a clear picture of what we want
>>> for it so discussion too, and does not solve ghosts on win/linux).
>>
>> Well that is OK by me, if we are now also doing something to remove
>> Hard Limiter and Leveler on all platforms. I was in favour of that.
>>
>>
>>> add/remove dialog update (again needs discussion about what we want, and
>>> would need significant change to the manual).
>>>
>>> So doing jc12 is a reversal of my reversal.  We're not renaming jc11 as
>>> RC1.  Expecting to progress from jc12 to RC1 instead.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gale, can you now make the change to the manual that you want to make,
>>> and let me know when you have, so that I can pull a new manual, and
>>> build jc12?
>>
>> I'm afraid not, until I've built and tested on all three platforms. As above,
>> I don't understand what your changes do, so I can't document them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gale
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --James.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Plans for jc12 - banish the ghosts.

Stevethefiddle
In reply to this post by Gale


On 6 February 2017 at 19:22, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 6 February 2017 at 18:34, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 18:08, Bill Wharrie <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 2017/02/06, at 12:23 PM, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 6 February 2017 at 14:06, James Crook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> OK.
>> >>
>> >> Feedback from Peter, Steve too agreeing with Bill about not having
>> >> absent plug-ins in the menu.
>> >>
>> >> Bill wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I think it makes us look a bit amateurish to provide menu choices for
>> >>> plugins that do not exist.
>> >> I agree too, which is why I created 1587.
>> >
>> > It is also amateurish in my opinion to silently remove plugins that
>> > were accidentally removed, leaving the user clueless.
>
> Gale, what do you mean "accidentally removed"?

I described that before, but I mean things like rename a folder the
effect is in, move the plugin to a path that looks supported but isn't,
such as Program Files\VST,  or move Nyquist plugins inside a
subfolder in a supported path.

I'm assuming that you are concerned primarily about novice users and shipped plug-ins, as experienced users that have gone through the processes of manually installing plug-ins must already have discovered how to make plug-ins work.

In the case of novice users and shipped plug-ins, it makes no sense to me that a user would start moving parts of the Audacity bundle into custom locations, or renaming parts of the bundle, clueless about what they are doing, and still expect it to work.

Steve


> If the user removes a plug-in, then is it not better that Audacity
> recognises the fact?

Yes, and we have to recognise it, as Bill says, for deliberately removed
plugins too.

The difference is that the user who deliberately removed plugins doesn't
need any prompt that the effect has been removed from the menu. The
user who made an honest mistake does, IMO.

It seems from the other thread that Steve agrees with me that if we check
for existence on launch then remove missing plugins that we should
inform the user.

As I said in that thread, that would suit me fine.



Gale


>> You assume that they have been accidentally removed. What if they were
>> deliberately removed? How can we tell?
>>
>> All that should happen with this fix is that an upgrader will not see menu
>> items for non-existent effects. On Mac this applies only to effects that may
>> have been in the plug-ins folder inside the Audacity folder inside
>> Applications. System-wide or user-wide plug-ins (that is, in the proper
>> system locations) will not be affected. IMO, for the vast majority of
>> upgraders, this will be totally transparent - they will see the same set of
>> Nyquist effects. Only those who have added their own effects to the plug-ins
>> folder will see a loss of effects, and this was always the case if they
>> over-wrote or deleted their old Audacity folder during or before upgrading.
>>
>> >
>> > Of course it is fine to silently remove no longer shipped plugins from
>> > old versions of Audacity, but from what you previously said you don't
>> > want to do that, either in Audacity or in a PKG.
>> >
>> > I know a PKG does not solve Linux or Windows (they have their own
>> > installation methods), and I see below you say making a PKG is a
>> > lot of work.
>> >
>> > If we did not silently remove no longer available plugins then as I
>> > said,
>> > I would probably change my mind, especially given others don't want
>> > absentee plugins in the menus..
>> >
>> > So would you consider tackling that objection? I consider it a "bug"
>> > created by the fix.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Despite Gale's opinion/arguments
>> >
>> > I don't especially like or condone what happens to upgraders on Mac, but
>> > I am also concerned at yet further delay. Where will it end? Getting a
>> > release out is looking to me like P0 now, trumping all other bugs.
>>
>> I thought I made it clear that I did not want this to unreasonably delay
>> release of 2.1.3.
>>
>> I also said I’m OK with the duplicate working effects (only because
>> dealing with that issue is likely to be more complex and delay release even
>> further).
>>
>> >
>> > I recommend deciding we don't like some behaviour in good time, so we
>> > don't have this extra delay.
>>
>> Sorry for raising this at the last minute. Because of my usual working
>> arrangement with multiple versions of Audacity on my machine I didn’t see
>> the issue until I did a thorough checkout of jc11.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> then, I am going to spin a jc12 that fixes
>> >>
>> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1587 - already have
>> >> the
>> >> fix.
>> >
>> > As I understand it, that fix does not target the problem effects on Mac,
>> > but all non-existent Nyquist effects on all platforms. Is that correct?
>> > If so,
>> > what about other effect types that may have a missing plugin, like VST
>> > or AU? Is the plan going forward to always have that inconsistency and
>> > to thus show "ghosts" for those, giving an unhelpful error message?
>>
>> As I said above, AU and VST should not have ghost effects in the menu
>> after installation.
>>
>> I’m talking about the upgrade from 2.1.2 to 2.1.3. The larger discussion
>> of when and how to update the contents of the menus is something I’ve always
>> intended for after 2.1.3.
>>
>> — Bill
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1580
>> >>
>> >> and addresses the main problem of
>> >>
>> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453
>> >
>> > What exactly does that do?
>> >
>> > Clicking the link in the bug 1453 report brings me to a commit:
>> >
>> > "Bug 1587: Fix removes ghost Nyquist effects from the effects menu and
>> > generators from generate menu."
>> >
>> > So are we showing "ghosts" for the five shipped Nyquist analysis
>> > effects?
>> >
>> > I see changes for files affecting all plugin types except AU. What are
>> > those
>> > changes doing?  You say in the bug report comment "Nyquist (and
>> > built-ins) only amelioration."  Does this then remove the ghost for Hard
>> > Limiter, which is neither built-in or Nyquist?
>> >
>> >
>> >> This IS the fix to ghosts, NOT a fix to legitimate duplicates from
>> >> multiple installations.  No .pkg will be added (that would be a ton of
>> >> development and test work, we don't have a clear picture of what we
>> >> want
>> >> for it so discussion too, and does not solve ghosts on win/linux).
>> >
>> > Well that is OK by me, if we are now also doing something to remove
>> > Hard Limiter and Leveler on all platforms. I was in favour of that.
>> >
>> >
>> >> add/remove dialog update (again needs discussion about what we want,
>> >> and
>> >> would need significant change to the manual).
>> >>
>> >> So doing jc12 is a reversal of my reversal.  We're not renaming jc11 as
>> >> RC1.  Expecting to progress from jc12 to RC1 instead.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Gale, can you now make the change to the manual that you want to make,
>> >> and let me know when you have, so that I can pull a new manual, and
>> >> build jc12?
>> >
>> > I'm afraid not, until I've built and tested on all three platforms. As
>> > above,
>> > I don't understand what your changes do, so I can't document them.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Gale
>> >
>> > .
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --James.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> > engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Audacity-quality mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Plans for jc12 - banish the ghosts.

Gale
Administrator
In reply to this post by James Crook
For some reason James's citations all appear in single indentation
here so I can't see who said what. I have tried to correct that.


On 6 February 2017 at 18:59, James Crook <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2/6/2017 5:23 PM, Gale Andrews wrote:
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 14:06, James Crook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> OK.
>
> Feedback from Peter, Steve too agreeing with Bill about not having
> absent plug-ins in the menu.
>
> Bill wrote:
>
> I think it makes us look a bit amateurish to provide menu choices for
> plugins that do not exist.
>
> I agree too, which is why I created 1587.
>
> It is also amateurish in my opinion to silently remove plugins that
> were accidentally removed, leaving the user clueless.
>
> I hear you, but if I've understood right, Bill, Peter, Steve and me disagree
> with you here.

Steve does not disagree, and asked for it to be tracked.

Steve wrote:
> If we scan and remove non-existent plug-ins on launch and do not inform
> the user, then I think a "P2/P3 enh" for Audacity to inform the user would
> be appropriate.


> Of course it is fine to silently remove no longer shipped plugins from
> old versions of Audacity, but from what you previously said you don't
> want to do that, either in Audacity or in a PKG.
>
> That is a different, less good solution, in my eyes.

I don't think you ever gave full reasons but the difference is marginal
if we try checking existence of all effects on launch. I was assuming
that is likely to be too time-expensive.

One advantage I saw in special casing removal of discontinued
shipped plugins is that we could deregister them, not just remove
them from the menus.



>> I know a PKG does not solve Linux or Windows (they have their own
>> installation methods), and I see below you say making a PKG is a
>> lot of work.
>
> Yes.  Two of the reasons not to do it via pkg.
>
>> If we did not silently remove no longer available plugins then as I said,
>> I would probably change my mind, especially given others don't want
>> absentee plugins in the menus..
>
> I disagree that it is a problem.  There are many things we do in Audacity
> without asking the user first, that follow from other actions, and they make
> for a better experience.
>
>> So would you consider tackling that objection? I consider it a "bug"
>> created by the fix.
>
> I think if you enter 'silent removal of ghost plugins from menu' as a bug I
> will lobby for you to agree that it is INVALID, and if not, I'll call for a
> vote.  Meanwhile, it takes on whatever rating you give it.  E.g. if P3 it
> gets a release note, even though I disagree.

Well, it seems Steve would vote with me, unless he changes his
mind.

I do see that because we don't distinguish removal of discontinued
shipped plugins from other causes of removal that we would
announce removal of those discontinued plugins too.


>>> Despite Gale's opinion/arguments
>>
>> I don't especially like or condone what happens to upgraders on Mac, but
>> I am also concerned at yet further delay. Where will it end? Getting a
>> release out is looking to me like P0 now, trumping all other bugs.
>
> I wasn't keen on tackling 1580  for the same reason, but have done, since I
> paused for 1587.
>
>> I recommend deciding we don't like some behaviour in good time, so we
>> don't have this extra delay.
>
> So do I.  However until Bill's report I was NOT AWARE that we had duplicates
> for all Nyquist plug-ins for upgraders.

I am sorry that when I mentioned this before I did not do so prominently
enough to get your attention.


> When I ran jc11 I did not see any problem.  I mistakenly thought 1453
> related only to Nyquist effects that differed between versions, not all
> nyquist effects.

I understand that 1453 refers to a previously shipped effect in any format.


>>> then, I am going to spin a jc12 that fixes
>>>
>>> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1587 - already have the
>>> fix.
>>
>> As I understand it, that fix does not target the problem effects on Mac,
>> but all non-existent Nyquist effects on all platforms. Is that correct?
>
>  Yes.

>> If so, what about other effect types that may have a missing plugin, like
>> VST or AU?
>
> There is the competing pull that the test takes time proportional to the
> number of effects.  It is acceptable cost for Nyquist as there are not
> hundreds of Nyquist effects.  Plus they are the ones causing most of the
> problem currently.

Just as a factual point, there are getting on for a hundred plugins at:
http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Download_Nyquist_Plug-ins

and perhaps another hundred or so experimental ones available
in the Forum.


>> Is the plan going forward to always have that inconsistency and
>> to thus show "ghosts" for those, giving an unhelpful error message?
>
> Properly testing presence of binary effects (dll/so) requires opening the
> effect to see what is in there and is slow.

I was worried about that. Out of curiosity, would not a check of path
existence be enough for the purposes of removing it from the menu?
Especially if Plug-in Manager gets a "Missing" category in a future
release?


> If we can find a fast way, I'd like no ghosts.  If we can't find a fast way, then
> I'd accept compromises..As minimum a helpful error message for a ghost.

Good.

>>> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1580
>>>
>>> and addresses the main problem of
>>>
>>> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453
>>
>> What exactly does that do?
>>
>> Clicking the link in the bug 1453 report brings me to a commit:
>>
>> "Bug 1587: Fix removes ghost Nyquist effects from the effects menu and
>>  generators from generate menu."
>>
> So are we showing "ghosts" for the five shipped Nyquist analysis effects?

Analysis effects are fixed too.  Should have said.

>>
>> I see changes for files affecting all plugin types except AU. What are those
>> changes doing?
>
> If you look at the code you will see there is a new parameter for fast
> testing of plug-in validity.  Nyquist and built in currently have fast
> testing enabled.  Others don't.  All need the extra flag.

OK, though the commit message did not say that..

So am I correct in thinking that AU effects should have the flag made
available in case we want to enable it?


> If we can later find fast ways to test the others, we will add them.
>
>> You say in the bug report comment "Nyquist (and
>> built-ins) only amelioration."  Does this then remove the ghost for Hard
>> Limiter, which is neither built-in or Nyquist?
>
> SC4 and Hard Limiter could ghost.
> I think users who have them will have deliberately enabled them in
> 2.1.2 so will be familiar with add/remove.  Not so for Nyquist.

Hard Limiter was default-enabled, I believe, on both Windows and
Mac.

SC4 (still shipped) is default-enabled on Windows. It is only due to
a bug or inconsistency that SC4 is not default-enabled on Mac.


>>> This IS the fix to ghosts, NOT a fix to legitimate duplicates from
>>> multiple installations.  No .pkg will be added (that would be a ton of
>>> development and test work, we don't have a clear picture of what we want
>>> for it so discussion too, and does not solve ghosts on win/linux).
>>>
>> Well that is OK by me, if we are now also doing something to remove
>> Hard Limiter and Leveler on all platforms. I was in favour of that.
>
>
> Hard Limiter was not shipped with 2.1.1 or 2.1.2, so is not a new problem.
> Leveler was built-in and so will be removed (all platforms).
>
>
>>> add/remove dialog update (again needs discussion about what we want, and
>>> would need significant change to the manual).
>
>>> So doing jc12 is a reversal of my reversal.  We're not renaming jc11 as
>>> RC1.  Expecting to progress from jc12 to RC1 instead.
>
>
>
>>> Gale, can you now make the change to the manual that you want to make,
>>> and let me know when you have, so that I can pull a new manual, and
>>> build jc12?
>
> > I'm afraid not, until I've built and tested on all three platforms. As
> > above, I don't understand what your changes do, so I can't document them.
>
> Understood.
>
> I therefore changed the wording in the manual myself to:
>
> Installing and updating Audacity on Mac OS X....
> "If you had a previous installation of Audacity, its shipped Nyquist plugins
> were in the "plug-ins" folder where Audacity was installed. Because Audacity
> now comes with the shipped plugins bundled inside the application, some
> plugins from previous Audacity may appear as a second copy of the plugin in
> the Generate, Effect or Analyze Menu. You can clean these duplicates up by
> deleting pluginregistry.cfg in ~/Library/Application Support/audacity/."
>
> I.e. the -> some, will-> may
>
> This is at least as correct as the text which we previously thought was OK
> and covers the new behaviour.  The old text didn't mention SC4, which
> appears with the Nyquist plug-ins in the menu, but it should be clear enough
> for those users who did enable it.

Yes that section was rushed a bit and it might now be hard to explain
succinctly the circumstances in which a duplicate would occur.

I think (working) duplicates on first launch of 2.1.3 may occur quite a lot,
assuming the user is keen to run 2.1.3 before tidying up the old
installation folder.

So depending when you're doing jc12, I think we should also have the
Manual mention open and OK in Add / Remove Plug-Ins - not as
thorough as deleting pluginregistry.cfg, but easier.


> If you're aware of any other likely new problems with the manual, let me
> know.  I am guessing this means that the manual is now at least as good to
> go for jc12 as it was previously for jc11.

Again depending when you're doing jc12, I could mention in the effects
pages that SC4 is not default enabled on Mac / not installed on Linux.
Better than in an already full yellow notes div in the Release Notes, IMO.

If I don't see you've done jc12 by your bed time, I'll make those changes
to the Manual. And I would prefer to try the changes myself before jc12,
but that's up to you.


Gale

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Plans for jc12 - banish the ghosts.

Cliff Scott
In reply to this post by Stevethefiddle

On Feb 6, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:



On 6 February 2017 at 19:22, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 6 February 2017 at 18:34, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 18:08, Bill Wharrie <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 2017/02/06, at 12:23 PM, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 6 February 2017 at 14:06, James Crook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> OK.
>> >>
>> >> Feedback from Peter, Steve too agreeing with Bill about not having
>> >> absent plug-ins in the menu.
>> >>
>> >> Bill wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I think it makes us look a bit amateurish to provide menu choices for
>> >>> plugins that do not exist.
>> >> I agree too, which is why I created 1587.
>> >
>> > It is also amateurish in my opinion to silently remove plugins that
>> > were accidentally removed, leaving the user clueless.
>
> Gale, what do you mean "accidentally removed"?

I described that before, but I mean things like rename a folder the
effect is in, move the plugin to a path that looks supported but isn't,
such as Program Files\VST,  or move Nyquist plugins inside a
subfolder in a supported path.

I'm assuming that you are concerned primarily about novice users and shipped plug-ins, as experienced users that have gone through the processes of manually installing plug-ins must already have discovered how to make plug-ins work.

In the case of novice users and shipped plug-ins, it makes no sense to me that a user would start moving parts of the Audacity bundle into custom locations, or renaming parts of the bundle, clueless about what they are doing, and still expect it to work.

Steve

Just an observation here. In reading the manual for an earlier version some time back I got the impression, apparently incorrectly, that to add a Nyquist plugin manually I would put it in with the other Nyquist plugins which were in the folder in the Applications folder. I've done this for a while. I even mentioned on this list my puzzlement regarding why the empty plugins folder in the /Library/Applications Support/audacity folder and nothing was said. Later I figured out that the added plugins were supposed to go there. I suspect that there are others that misunderstood this as well so indeed it needs to be mentioned for the user to be aware of the consequences when upgrading.

Cliff 



> If the user removes a plug-in, then is it not better that Audacity
> recognises the fact?

Yes, and we have to recognise it, as Bill says, for deliberately removed
plugins too.

The difference is that the user who deliberately removed plugins doesn't
need any prompt that the effect has been removed from the menu. The
user who made an honest mistake does, IMO.

It seems from the other thread that Steve agrees with me that if we check
for existence on launch then remove missing plugins that we should
inform the user.

As I said in that thread, that would suit me fine.



Gale


>> You assume that they have been accidentally removed. What if they were
>> deliberately removed? How can we tell?
>>
>> All that should happen with this fix is that an upgrader will not see menu
>> items for non-existent effects. On Mac this applies only to effects that may
>> have been in the plug-ins folder inside the Audacity folder inside
>> Applications. System-wide or user-wide plug-ins (that is, in the proper
>> system locations) will not be affected. IMO, for the vast majority of
>> upgraders, this will be totally transparent - they will see the same set of
>> Nyquist effects. Only those who have added their own effects to the plug-ins
>> folder will see a loss of effects, and this was always the case if they
>> over-wrote or deleted their old Audacity folder during or before upgrading.
>>
>> >
>> > Of course it is fine to silently remove no longer shipped plugins from
>> > old versions of Audacity, but from what you previously said you don't
>> > want to do that, either in Audacity or in a PKG.
>> >
>> > I know a PKG does not solve Linux or Windows (they have their own
>> > installation methods), and I see below you say making a PKG is a
>> > lot of work.
>> >
>> > If we did not silently remove no longer available plugins then as I
>> > said,
>> > I would probably change my mind, especially given others don't want
>> > absentee plugins in the menus..
>> >
>> > So would you consider tackling that objection? I consider it a "bug"
>> > created by the fix.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Despite Gale's opinion/arguments
>> >
>> > I don't especially like or condone what happens to upgraders on Mac, but
>> > I am also concerned at yet further delay. Where will it end? Getting a
>> > release out is looking to me like P0 now, trumping all other bugs.
>>
>> I thought I made it clear that I did not want this to unreasonably delay
>> release of 2.1.3.
>>
>> I also said I’m OK with the duplicate working effects (only because
>> dealing with that issue is likely to be more complex and delay release even
>> further).
>>
>> >
>> > I recommend deciding we don't like some behaviour in good time, so we
>> > don't have this extra delay.
>>
>> Sorry for raising this at the last minute. Because of my usual working
>> arrangement with multiple versions of Audacity on my machine I didn’t see
>> the issue until I did a thorough checkout of jc11.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> then, I am going to spin a jc12 that fixes
>> >>
>> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1587 - already have
>> >> the
>> >> fix.
>> >
>> > As I understand it, that fix does not target the problem effects on Mac,
>> > but all non-existent Nyquist effects on all platforms. Is that correct?
>> > If so,
>> > what about other effect types that may have a missing plugin, like VST
>> > or AU? Is the plan going forward to always have that inconsistency and
>> > to thus show "ghosts" for those, giving an unhelpful error message?
>>
>> As I said above, AU and VST should not have ghost effects in the menu
>> after installation.
>>
>> I’m talking about the upgrade from 2.1.2 to 2.1.3. The larger discussion
>> of when and how to update the contents of the menus is something I’ve always
>> intended for after 2.1.3.
>>
>> — Bill
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1580
>> >>
>> >> and addresses the main problem of
>> >>
>> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453
>> >
>> > What exactly does that do?
>> >
>> > Clicking the link in the bug 1453 report brings me to a commit:
>> >
>> > "Bug 1587: Fix removes ghost Nyquist effects from the effects menu and
>> > generators from generate menu."
>> >
>> > So are we showing "ghosts" for the five shipped Nyquist analysis
>> > effects?
>> >
>> > I see changes for files affecting all plugin types except AU. What are
>> > those
>> > changes doing?  You say in the bug report comment "Nyquist (and
>> > built-ins) only amelioration."  Does this then remove the ghost for Hard
>> > Limiter, which is neither built-in or Nyquist?
>> >
>> >
>> >> This IS the fix to ghosts, NOT a fix to legitimate duplicates from
>> >> multiple installations.  No .pkg will be added (that would be a ton of
>> >> development and test work, we don't have a clear picture of what we
>> >> want
>> >> for it so discussion too, and does not solve ghosts on win/linux).
>> >
>> > Well that is OK by me, if we are now also doing something to remove
>> > Hard Limiter and Leveler on all platforms. I was in favour of that.
>> >
>> >
>> >> add/remove dialog update (again needs discussion about what we want,
>> >> and
>> >> would need significant change to the manual).
>> >>
>> >> So doing jc12 is a reversal of my reversal.  We're not renaming jc11 as
>> >> RC1.  Expecting to progress from jc12 to RC1 instead.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Gale, can you now make the change to the manual that you want to make,
>> >> and let me know when you have, so that I can pull a new manual, and
>> >> build jc12?
>> >
>> > I'm afraid not, until I've built and tested on all three platforms. As
>> > above,
>> > I don't understand what your changes do, so I can't document them.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Gale
>> >
>> > .
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --James.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Plans for jc12 - banish the ghosts.

Gale
Administrator
In reply to this post by Stevethefiddle
On 6 February 2017 at 20:25, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 19:22, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 6 February 2017 at 18:34, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6 February 2017 at 18:08, Bill Wharrie <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > On 2017/02/06, at 12:23 PM, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > On 6 February 2017 at 14:06, James Crook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> >> OK.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Feedback from Peter, Steve too agreeing with Bill about not having
>> >> >> absent plug-ins in the menu.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bill wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> I think it makes us look a bit amateurish to provide menu choices
>> >> >>> for
>> >> >>> plugins that do not exist.
>> >> >> I agree too, which is why I created 1587.
>> >> >
>> >> > It is also amateurish in my opinion to silently remove plugins that
>> >> > were accidentally removed, leaving the user clueless.
>> >
>> > Gale, what do you mean "accidentally removed"?
>>
>> I described that before, but I mean things like rename a folder the
>> effect is in, move the plugin to a path that looks supported but isn't,
>> such as Program Files\VST,  or move Nyquist plugins inside a
>> subfolder in a supported path.
>
>
> I'm assuming that you are concerned primarily about novice users and shipped
> plug-ins,

Not entirely. We don't ship VST plugins, and any plugin format where
Audacity doesn't support recursive search is susceptible.

Consider that you can organise VST plugins by putting them in a
subfolder, and Audacity will see them fine.

Do the same for Nyquist plugins and Audacity doesn't see them.

I think even some advanced users will trip up on that.


>  as experienced users that have gone through the processes of
> manually installing plug-ins must already have discovered how to make
> plug-ins work.
>
> In the case of novice users and shipped plug-ins, it makes no sense to me
> that a user would start moving parts of the Audacity bundle into custom
> locations, or renaming parts of the bundle, clueless about what they are
> doing, and still expect it to work.

What I am talking about applies generally, not just to Mac.



Gale

>> > If the user removes a plug-in, then is it not better that Audacity
>> > recognises the fact?
>>
>> Yes, and we have to recognise it, as Bill says, for deliberately removed
>> plugins too.
>>
>> The difference is that the user who deliberately removed plugins doesn't
>> need any prompt that the effect has been removed from the menu. The
>> user who made an honest mistake does, IMO.
>>
>> It seems from the other thread that Steve agrees with me that if we check
>> for existence on launch then remove missing plugins that we should
>> inform the user.
>>
>> As I said in that thread, that would suit me fine.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gale
>>
>>
>> >> You assume that they have been accidentally removed. What if they were
>> >> deliberately removed? How can we tell?
>> >>
>> >> All that should happen with this fix is that an upgrader will not see
>> >> menu
>> >> items for non-existent effects. On Mac this applies only to effects
>> >> that may
>> >> have been in the plug-ins folder inside the Audacity folder inside
>> >> Applications. System-wide or user-wide plug-ins (that is, in the proper
>> >> system locations) will not be affected. IMO, for the vast majority of
>> >> upgraders, this will be totally transparent - they will see the same
>> >> set of
>> >> Nyquist effects. Only those who have added their own effects to the
>> >> plug-ins
>> >> folder will see a loss of effects, and this was always the case if they
>> >> over-wrote or deleted their old Audacity folder during or before
>> >> upgrading.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course it is fine to silently remove no longer shipped plugins
>> >> > from
>> >> > old versions of Audacity, but from what you previously said you don't
>> >> > want to do that, either in Audacity or in a PKG.
>> >> >
>> >> > I know a PKG does not solve Linux or Windows (they have their own
>> >> > installation methods), and I see below you say making a PKG is a
>> >> > lot of work.
>> >> >
>> >> > If we did not silently remove no longer available plugins then as I
>> >> > said,
>> >> > I would probably change my mind, especially given others don't want
>> >> > absentee plugins in the menus..
>> >> >
>> >> > So would you consider tackling that objection? I consider it a "bug"
>> >> > created by the fix.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Despite Gale's opinion/arguments
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't especially like or condone what happens to upgraders on Mac,
>> >> > but
>> >> > I am also concerned at yet further delay. Where will it end? Getting
>> >> > a
>> >> > release out is looking to me like P0 now, trumping all other bugs.
>> >>
>> >> I thought I made it clear that I did not want this to unreasonably
>> >> delay
>> >> release of 2.1.3.
>> >>
>> >> I also said I’m OK with the duplicate working effects (only because
>> >> dealing with that issue is likely to be more complex and delay release
>> >> even
>> >> further).
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I recommend deciding we don't like some behaviour in good time, so we
>> >> > don't have this extra delay.
>> >>
>> >> Sorry for raising this at the last minute. Because of my usual working
>> >> arrangement with multiple versions of Audacity on my machine I didn’t
>> >> see
>> >> the issue until I did a thorough checkout of jc11.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> then, I am going to spin a jc12 that fixes
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1587 - already have
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> fix.
>> >> >
>> >> > As I understand it, that fix does not target the problem effects on
>> >> > Mac,
>> >> > but all non-existent Nyquist effects on all platforms. Is that
>> >> > correct?
>> >> > If so,
>> >> > what about other effect types that may have a missing plugin, like
>> >> > VST
>> >> > or AU? Is the plan going forward to always have that inconsistency
>> >> > and
>> >> > to thus show "ghosts" for those, giving an unhelpful error message?
>> >>
>> >> As I said above, AU and VST should not have ghost effects in the menu
>> >> after installation.
>> >>
>> >> I’m talking about the upgrade from 2.1.2 to 2.1.3. The larger
>> >> discussion
>> >> of when and how to update the contents of the menus is something I’ve
>> >> always
>> >> intended for after 2.1.3.
>> >>
>> >> — Bill
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1580
>> >> >>
>> >> >> and addresses the main problem of
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453
>> >> >
>> >> > What exactly does that do?
>> >> >
>> >> > Clicking the link in the bug 1453 report brings me to a commit:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Bug 1587: Fix removes ghost Nyquist effects from the effects menu
>> >> > and
>> >> > generators from generate menu."
>> >> >
>> >> > So are we showing "ghosts" for the five shipped Nyquist analysis
>> >> > effects?
>> >> >
>> >> > I see changes for files affecting all plugin types except AU. What
>> >> > are
>> >> > those
>> >> > changes doing?  You say in the bug report comment "Nyquist (and
>> >> > built-ins) only amelioration."  Does this then remove the ghost for
>> >> > Hard
>> >> > Limiter, which is neither built-in or Nyquist?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> This IS the fix to ghosts, NOT a fix to legitimate duplicates from
>> >> >> multiple installations.  No .pkg will be added (that would be a ton
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> development and test work, we don't have a clear picture of what we
>> >> >> want
>> >> >> for it so discussion too, and does not solve ghosts on win/linux).
>> >> >
>> >> > Well that is OK by me, if we are now also doing something to remove
>> >> > Hard Limiter and Leveler on all platforms. I was in favour of that.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> add/remove dialog update (again needs discussion about what we want,
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> would need significant change to the manual).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So doing jc12 is a reversal of my reversal.  We're not renaming jc11
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> RC1.  Expecting to progress from jc12 to RC1 instead.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Gale, can you now make the change to the manual that you want to
>> >> >> make,
>> >> >> and let me know when you have, so that I can pull a new manual, and
>> >> >> build jc12?
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm afraid not, until I've built and tested on all three platforms.
>> >> > As
>> >> > above,
>> >> > I don't understand what your changes do, so I can't document them.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Gale
>> >> >
>> >> > .
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --James.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> >> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> >> >> [hidden email]
>> >> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> > engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > Audacity-quality mailing list
>> >> > [hidden email]
>> >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> > engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Audacity-quality mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Plans for jc12 - banish the ghosts.

Gale
Administrator
In reply to this post by Cliff Scott
On 6 February 2017 at 21:31, Cliff Scott <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 19:22, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 6 February 2017 at 18:34, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6 February 2017 at 18:08, Bill Wharrie <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > On 2017/02/06, at 12:23 PM, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > On 6 February 2017 at 14:06, James Crook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> >> OK.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Feedback from Peter, Steve too agreeing with Bill about not having
>> >> >> absent plug-ins in the menu.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bill wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> I think it makes us look a bit amateurish to provide menu choices
>> >> >>> for
>> >> >>> plugins that do not exist.
>> >> >> I agree too, which is why I created 1587.
>> >> >
>> >> > It is also amateurish in my opinion to silently remove plugins that
>> >> > were accidentally removed, leaving the user clueless.
>> >
>> > Gale, what do you mean "accidentally removed"?
>>
>> I described that before, but I mean things like rename a folder the
>> effect is in, move the plugin to a path that looks supported but isn't,
>> such as Program Files\VST,  or move Nyquist plugins inside a
>> subfolder in a supported path.
>
>
> I'm assuming that you are concerned primarily about novice users and shipped
> plug-ins, as experienced users that have gone through the processes of
> manually installing plug-ins must already have discovered how to make
> plug-ins work.
>
> In the case of novice users and shipped plug-ins, it makes no sense to me
> that a user would start moving parts of the Audacity bundle into custom
> locations, or renaming parts of the bundle, clueless about what they are
> doing, and still expect it to work.
>
> Steve
>
>
> Just an observation here. In reading the manual for an earlier version some
> time back I got the impression, apparently incorrectly, that to add a
> Nyquist plugin manually I would put it in with the other Nyquist plugins
> which were in the folder in the Applications folder.

This was correct until we moved to all-in-one.


> I've done this for a while. I even mentioned on this list my puzzlement
> regarding why the empty plugins folder in the
> /Library/Applications Support/audacity folder and nothing was said. Later
> I figured out that the added plugins were supposed to go there. I suspect
> that there are others that misunderstood this as well so indeed it needs to
> be mentioned for the user to be aware of the consequences when upgrading.

You can put LADSPA, VST and Nyquist plugins inside the "Plug-ins"
folder inside the bundle in 2.1.3 and they should work, but the Manual
now states that

~/Library/Application Support/audacity/Plug-Ins

is the Audacity Plug-Ins folder on Mac (note the tilde before "/Library").

I think I removed all or almost all the old references to using the folder
where Audacity was installed, and recommended
~/Library/Application Support/audacity/Plug-Ins .

By all means have a check over it:
http://alphamanual.audacityteam.org/man/Main_Page  .

If there is no jc12 tonight and you tell me there's a problem then I can
change it overnight. Put it in a new thread please.

Thanks


Gale


>> > If the user removes a plug-in, then is it not better that Audacity
>> > recognises the fact?
>>
>> Yes, and we have to recognise it, as Bill says, for deliberately removed
>> plugins too.
>>
>> The difference is that the user who deliberately removed plugins doesn't
>> need any prompt that the effect has been removed from the menu. The
>> user who made an honest mistake does, IMO.
>>
>> It seems from the other thread that Steve agrees with me that if we check
>> for existence on launch then remove missing plugins that we should
>> inform the user.
>>
>> As I said in that thread, that would suit me fine.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gale
>>
>>
>> >> You assume that they have been accidentally removed. What if they were
>> >> deliberately removed? How can we tell?
>> >>
>> >> All that should happen with this fix is that an upgrader will not see
>> >> menu
>> >> items for non-existent effects. On Mac this applies only to effects
>> >> that may
>> >> have been in the plug-ins folder inside the Audacity folder inside
>> >> Applications. System-wide or user-wide plug-ins (that is, in the proper
>> >> system locations) will not be affected. IMO, for the vast majority of
>> >> upgraders, this will be totally transparent - they will see the same
>> >> set of
>> >> Nyquist effects. Only those who have added their own effects to the
>> >> plug-ins
>> >> folder will see a loss of effects, and this was always the case if they
>> >> over-wrote or deleted their old Audacity folder during or before
>> >> upgrading.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course it is fine to silently remove no longer shipped plugins
>> >> > from
>> >> > old versions of Audacity, but from what you previously said you don't
>> >> > want to do that, either in Audacity or in a PKG.
>> >> >
>> >> > I know a PKG does not solve Linux or Windows (they have their own
>> >> > installation methods), and I see below you say making a PKG is a
>> >> > lot of work.
>> >> >
>> >> > If we did not silently remove no longer available plugins then as I
>> >> > said,
>> >> > I would probably change my mind, especially given others don't want
>> >> > absentee plugins in the menus..
>> >> >
>> >> > So would you consider tackling that objection? I consider it a "bug"
>> >> > created by the fix.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Despite Gale's opinion/arguments
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't especially like or condone what happens to upgraders on Mac,
>> >> > but
>> >> > I am also concerned at yet further delay. Where will it end? Getting
>> >> > a
>> >> > release out is looking to me like P0 now, trumping all other bugs.
>> >>
>> >> I thought I made it clear that I did not want this to unreasonably
>> >> delay
>> >> release of 2.1.3.
>> >>
>> >> I also said I’m OK with the duplicate working effects (only because
>> >> dealing with that issue is likely to be more complex and delay release
>> >> even
>> >> further).
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I recommend deciding we don't like some behaviour in good time, so we
>> >> > don't have this extra delay.
>> >>
>> >> Sorry for raising this at the last minute. Because of my usual working
>> >> arrangement with multiple versions of Audacity on my machine I didn’t
>> >> see
>> >> the issue until I did a thorough checkout of jc11.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> then, I am going to spin a jc12 that fixes
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1587 - already have
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> fix.
>> >> >
>> >> > As I understand it, that fix does not target the problem effects on
>> >> > Mac,
>> >> > but all non-existent Nyquist effects on all platforms. Is that
>> >> > correct?
>> >> > If so,
>> >> > what about other effect types that may have a missing plugin, like
>> >> > VST
>> >> > or AU? Is the plan going forward to always have that inconsistency
>> >> > and
>> >> > to thus show "ghosts" for those, giving an unhelpful error message?
>> >>
>> >> As I said above, AU and VST should not have ghost effects in the menu
>> >> after installation.
>> >>
>> >> I’m talking about the upgrade from 2.1.2 to 2.1.3. The larger
>> >> discussion
>> >> of when and how to update the contents of the menus is something I’ve
>> >> always
>> >> intended for after 2.1.3.
>> >>
>> >> — Bill
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1580
>> >> >>
>> >> >> and addresses the main problem of
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453
>> >> >
>> >> > What exactly does that do?
>> >> >
>> >> > Clicking the link in the bug 1453 report brings me to a commit:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Bug 1587: Fix removes ghost Nyquist effects from the effects menu
>> >> > and
>> >> > generators from generate menu."
>> >> >
>> >> > So are we showing "ghosts" for the five shipped Nyquist analysis
>> >> > effects?
>> >> >
>> >> > I see changes for files affecting all plugin types except AU. What
>> >> > are
>> >> > those
>> >> > changes doing?  You say in the bug report comment "Nyquist (and
>> >> > built-ins) only amelioration."  Does this then remove the ghost for
>> >> > Hard
>> >> > Limiter, which is neither built-in or Nyquist?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> This IS the fix to ghosts, NOT a fix to legitimate duplicates from
>> >> >> multiple installations.  No .pkg will be added (that would be a ton
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> development and test work, we don't have a clear picture of what we
>> >> >> want
>> >> >> for it so discussion too, and does not solve ghosts on win/linux).
>> >> >
>> >> > Well that is OK by me, if we are now also doing something to remove
>> >> > Hard Limiter and Leveler on all platforms. I was in favour of that.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> add/remove dialog update (again needs discussion about what we want,
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> would need significant change to the manual).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So doing jc12 is a reversal of my reversal.  We're not renaming jc11
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> RC1.  Expecting to progress from jc12 to RC1 instead.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Gale, can you now make the change to the manual that you want to
>> >> >> make,
>> >> >> and let me know when you have, so that I can pull a new manual, and
>> >> >> build jc12?
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm afraid not, until I've built and tested on all three platforms.
>> >> > As
>> >> > above,
>> >> > I don't understand what your changes do, so I can't document them.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Gale
>> >> >
>> >> > .
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --James.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Plans for jc12 - banish the ghosts.

Stevethefiddle
In reply to this post by Gale


On 6 February 2017 at 22:04, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 6 February 2017 at 20:25, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 19:22, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 6 February 2017 at 18:34, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6 February 2017 at 18:08, Bill Wharrie <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > On 2017/02/06, at 12:23 PM, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > On 6 February 2017 at 14:06, James Crook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> >> OK.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Feedback from Peter, Steve too agreeing with Bill about not having
>> >> >> absent plug-ins in the menu.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bill wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> I think it makes us look a bit amateurish to provide menu choices
>> >> >>> for
>> >> >>> plugins that do not exist.
>> >> >> I agree too, which is why I created 1587.
>> >> >
>> >> > It is also amateurish in my opinion to silently remove plugins that
>> >> > were accidentally removed, leaving the user clueless.
>> >
>> > Gale, what do you mean "accidentally removed"?
>>
>> I described that before, but I mean things like rename a folder the
>> effect is in, move the plugin to a path that looks supported but isn't,
>> such as Program Files\VST,  or move Nyquist plugins inside a
>> subfolder in a supported path.
>
>
> I'm assuming that you are concerned primarily about novice users and shipped
> plug-ins,

Not entirely. We don't ship VST plugins, and any plugin format where
Audacity doesn't support recursive search is susceptible.

Consider that you can organise VST plugins by putting them in a
subfolder, and Audacity will see them fine.

Do the same for Nyquist plugins and Audacity doesn't see them.

I think even some advanced users will trip up on that.

I must be missing the point,

Putting myself in the place of an inexperienced user that has managed to install one or more Nyquist plug-ins and have them work - If I move them to another location (not sure what would motivate me to do that) and then find that they are no longer shown in Audacity, would it not be obvious to me that I should not have moved them?

Steve
 


>  as experienced users that have gone through the processes of
> manually installing plug-ins must already have discovered how to make
> plug-ins work.
>
> In the case of novice users and shipped plug-ins, it makes no sense to me
> that a user would start moving parts of the Audacity bundle into custom
> locations, or renaming parts of the bundle, clueless about what they are
> doing, and still expect it to work.

What I am talking about applies generally, not just to Mac.



Gale

>> > If the user removes a plug-in, then is it not better that Audacity
>> > recognises the fact?
>>
>> Yes, and we have to recognise it, as Bill says, for deliberately removed
>> plugins too.
>>
>> The difference is that the user who deliberately removed plugins doesn't
>> need any prompt that the effect has been removed from the menu. The
>> user who made an honest mistake does, IMO.
>>
>> It seems from the other thread that Steve agrees with me that if we check
>> for existence on launch then remove missing plugins that we should
>> inform the user.
>>
>> As I said in that thread, that would suit me fine.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gale
>>
>>
>> >> You assume that they have been accidentally removed. What if they were
>> >> deliberately removed? How can we tell?
>> >>
>> >> All that should happen with this fix is that an upgrader will not see
>> >> menu
>> >> items for non-existent effects. On Mac this applies only to effects
>> >> that may
>> >> have been in the plug-ins folder inside the Audacity folder inside
>> >> Applications. System-wide or user-wide plug-ins (that is, in the proper
>> >> system locations) will not be affected. IMO, for the vast majority of
>> >> upgraders, this will be totally transparent - they will see the same
>> >> set of
>> >> Nyquist effects. Only those who have added their own effects to the
>> >> plug-ins
>> >> folder will see a loss of effects, and this was always the case if they
>> >> over-wrote or deleted their old Audacity folder during or before
>> >> upgrading.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course it is fine to silently remove no longer shipped plugins
>> >> > from
>> >> > old versions of Audacity, but from what you previously said you don't
>> >> > want to do that, either in Audacity or in a PKG.
>> >> >
>> >> > I know a PKG does not solve Linux or Windows (they have their own
>> >> > installation methods), and I see below you say making a PKG is a
>> >> > lot of work.
>> >> >
>> >> > If we did not silently remove no longer available plugins then as I
>> >> > said,
>> >> > I would probably change my mind, especially given others don't want
>> >> > absentee plugins in the menus..
>> >> >
>> >> > So would you consider tackling that objection? I consider it a "bug"
>> >> > created by the fix.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Despite Gale's opinion/arguments
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't especially like or condone what happens to upgraders on Mac,
>> >> > but
>> >> > I am also concerned at yet further delay. Where will it end? Getting
>> >> > a
>> >> > release out is looking to me like P0 now, trumping all other bugs.
>> >>
>> >> I thought I made it clear that I did not want this to unreasonably
>> >> delay
>> >> release of 2.1.3.
>> >>
>> >> I also said I’m OK with the duplicate working effects (only because
>> >> dealing with that issue is likely to be more complex and delay release
>> >> even
>> >> further).
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I recommend deciding we don't like some behaviour in good time, so we
>> >> > don't have this extra delay.
>> >>
>> >> Sorry for raising this at the last minute. Because of my usual working
>> >> arrangement with multiple versions of Audacity on my machine I didn’t
>> >> see
>> >> the issue until I did a thorough checkout of jc11.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> then, I am going to spin a jc12 that fixes
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1587 - already have
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> fix.
>> >> >
>> >> > As I understand it, that fix does not target the problem effects on
>> >> > Mac,
>> >> > but all non-existent Nyquist effects on all platforms. Is that
>> >> > correct?
>> >> > If so,
>> >> > what about other effect types that may have a missing plugin, like
>> >> > VST
>> >> > or AU? Is the plan going forward to always have that inconsistency
>> >> > and
>> >> > to thus show "ghosts" for those, giving an unhelpful error message?
>> >>
>> >> As I said above, AU and VST should not have ghost effects in the menu
>> >> after installation.
>> >>
>> >> I’m talking about the upgrade from 2.1.2 to 2.1.3. The larger
>> >> discussion
>> >> of when and how to update the contents of the menus is something I’ve
>> >> always
>> >> intended for after 2.1.3.
>> >>
>> >> — Bill
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1580
>> >> >>
>> >> >> and addresses the main problem of
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453
>> >> >
>> >> > What exactly does that do?
>> >> >
>> >> > Clicking the link in the bug 1453 report brings me to a commit:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Bug 1587: Fix removes ghost Nyquist effects from the effects menu
>> >> > and
>> >> > generators from generate menu."
>> >> >
>> >> > So are we showing "ghosts" for the five shipped Nyquist analysis
>> >> > effects?
>> >> >
>> >> > I see changes for files affecting all plugin types except AU. What
>> >> > are
>> >> > those
>> >> > changes doing?  You say in the bug report comment "Nyquist (and
>> >> > built-ins) only amelioration."  Does this then remove the ghost for
>> >> > Hard
>> >> > Limiter, which is neither built-in or Nyquist?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> This IS the fix to ghosts, NOT a fix to legitimate duplicates from
>> >> >> multiple installations.  No .pkg will be added (that would be a ton
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> development and test work, we don't have a clear picture of what we
>> >> >> want
>> >> >> for it so discussion too, and does not solve ghosts on win/linux).
>> >> >
>> >> > Well that is OK by me, if we are now also doing something to remove
>> >> > Hard Limiter and Leveler on all platforms. I was in favour of that.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> add/remove dialog update (again needs discussion about what we want,
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> would need significant change to the manual).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So doing jc12 is a reversal of my reversal.  We're not renaming jc11
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> RC1.  Expecting to progress from jc12 to RC1 instead.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Gale, can you now make the change to the manual that you want to
>> >> >> make,
>> >> >> and let me know when you have, so that I can pull a new manual, and
>> >> >> build jc12?
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm afraid not, until I've built and tested on all three platforms.
>> >> > As
>> >> > above,
>> >> > I don't understand what your changes do, so I can't document them.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Gale
>> >> >
>> >> > .
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --James.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> >> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> >> >> [hidden email]
>> >> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> > engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > Audacity-quality mailing list
>> >> > [hidden email]
>> >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> > engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Audacity-quality mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Speed of Checking Nyquist plug ins.

James Crook
In reply to this post by Gale
On 2/6/2017 9:11 PM, Gale Andrews wrote:
> Just as a factual point, there are getting on for a hundred plugins at:
> http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Download_Nyquist_Plug-ins
>
> and perhaps another hundred or so experimental ones available
> in the Forum.
I hadn't realised that.

Here's some more information

I tried out the new code with 1,000 nyquist plug ins in a debug build,
on a windows machine with spinning platters.  It took 25 seconds to run
the part of the code that checked them, so 25ms per nyquist plug-in.

Users who have the 17 shipped plug-ins (twice) will experience a delay
of 0.85 seconds.  A user with 100 Nyquist plug-ins (exceptional) will
lose 2.5 seconds relative to before, perhaps less in a release build.

I regard that as acceptable trade off.  If we can later see a way to
reduce that time, great, but reducing the time is not essential for
2.1.3, in my opinion.

--James.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speed of Checking Nyquist plug ins.

Gale
Administrator
Thanks for testing.

On Windows 10 (spinning disk of course, 6 GB RAM, 2.4 GHz) I added 200
Nyquist plugins.

I see no extra slowness opening Plug-in Manager.

After enabling those extra 200 plugins and OK, the progress dialogue took
five seconds.

At a rough guess I'd say Audacity is taking about 10 seconds longer
to launch with those extras. I usually see an average of about
30 seconds on ten launches with only shipped plugins (the longest
can be 40 or 50 seconds).

I got an average of 40 seconds and a maximum of 55 seconds on ten
launches with the extra plugins.



Gale


On 6 February 2017 at 22:47, James Crook <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2/6/2017 9:11 PM, Gale Andrews wrote:
>> Just as a factual point, there are getting on for a hundred plugins at:
>> http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Download_Nyquist_Plug-ins
>>
>> and perhaps another hundred or so experimental ones available
>> in the Forum.
> I hadn't realised that.
>
> Here's some more information
>
> I tried out the new code with 1,000 nyquist plug ins in a debug build,
> on a windows machine with spinning platters.  It took 25 seconds to run
> the part of the code that checked them, so 25ms per nyquist plug-in.
>
> Users who have the 17 shipped plug-ins (twice) will experience a delay
> of 0.85 seconds.  A user with 100 Nyquist plug-ins (exceptional) will
> lose 2.5 seconds relative to before, perhaps less in a release build.
>
> I regard that as acceptable trade off.  If we can later see a way to
> reduce that time, great, but reducing the time is not essential for
> 2.1.3, in my opinion.
>
> --James.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Plans for jc12 - banish the ghosts.

Gale
Administrator
In reply to this post by Stevethefiddle
On 6 February 2017 at 22:33, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 22:04, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 6 February 2017 at 20:25, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6 February 2017 at 19:22, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 6 February 2017 at 18:34, Steve the Fiddle
>> >> <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 6 February 2017 at 18:08, Bill Wharrie <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On 2017/02/06, at 12:23 PM, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On 6 February 2017 at 14:06, James Crook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> OK.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Feedback from Peter, Steve too agreeing with Bill about not
>> >> >> >> having
>> >> >> >> absent plug-ins in the menu.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Bill wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> I think it makes us look a bit amateurish to provide menu
>> >> >> >>> choices
>> >> >> >>> for
>> >> >> >>> plugins that do not exist.
>> >> >> >> I agree too, which is why I created 1587.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It is also amateurish in my opinion to silently remove plugins
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > were accidentally removed, leaving the user clueless.
>> >> >
>> >> > Gale, what do you mean "accidentally removed"?
>> >>
>> >> I described that before, but I mean things like rename a folder the
>> >> effect is in, move the plugin to a path that looks supported but isn't,
>> >> such as Program Files\VST,  or move Nyquist plugins inside a
>> >> subfolder in a supported path.
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm assuming that you are concerned primarily about novice users and
>> > shipped
>> > plug-ins,
>>
>> Not entirely. We don't ship VST plugins, and any plugin format where
>> Audacity doesn't support recursive search is susceptible.
>>
>> Consider that you can organise VST plugins by putting them in a
>> subfolder, and Audacity will see them fine.
>>
>> Do the same for Nyquist plugins and Audacity doesn't see them.
>>
>> I think even some advanced users will trip up on that.
>
>
> I must be missing the point,
>
> Putting myself in the place of an inexperienced user that has managed to
> install one or more Nyquist plug-ins and have them work - If I move them to
> another location (not sure what would motivate me to do that) and then find
> that they are no longer shown in Audacity, would it not be obvious to me
> that I should not have moved them?

I don't think it is obvious in the case I gave where recurse works in one
format and not another.  I think there was a case like this on the Forum
that I answered sometime in the last year.

We'll have to see what support or protest there is about informing the
user after removing missing plugins.


Gale

>> >  as experienced users that have gone through the processes of
>> > manually installing plug-ins must already have discovered how to make
>> > plug-ins work.
>> >
>> > In the case of novice users and shipped plug-ins, it makes no sense to
>> > me
>> > that a user would start moving parts of the Audacity bundle into custom
>> > locations, or renaming parts of the bundle, clueless about what they are
>> > doing, and still expect it to work.
>>
>> What I am talking about applies generally, not just to Mac.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gale
>>
>> >> > If the user removes a plug-in, then is it not better that Audacity
>> >> > recognises the fact?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, and we have to recognise it, as Bill says, for deliberately
>> >> removed
>> >> plugins too.
>> >>
>> >> The difference is that the user who deliberately removed plugins
>> >> doesn't
>> >> need any prompt that the effect has been removed from the menu. The
>> >> user who made an honest mistake does, IMO.
>> >>
>> >> It seems from the other thread that Steve agrees with me that if we
>> >> check
>> >> for existence on launch then remove missing plugins that we should
>> >> inform the user.
>> >>
>> >> As I said in that thread, that would suit me fine.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Gale
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> You assume that they have been accidentally removed. What if they
>> >> >> were
>> >> >> deliberately removed? How can we tell?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> All that should happen with this fix is that an upgrader will not
>> >> >> see
>> >> >> menu
>> >> >> items for non-existent effects. On Mac this applies only to effects
>> >> >> that may
>> >> >> have been in the plug-ins folder inside the Audacity folder inside
>> >> >> Applications. System-wide or user-wide plug-ins (that is, in the
>> >> >> proper
>> >> >> system locations) will not be affected. IMO, for the vast majority
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> upgraders, this will be totally transparent - they will see the same
>> >> >> set of
>> >> >> Nyquist effects. Only those who have added their own effects to the
>> >> >> plug-ins
>> >> >> folder will see a loss of effects, and this was always the case if
>> >> >> they
>> >> >> over-wrote or deleted their old Audacity folder during or before
>> >> >> upgrading.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Of course it is fine to silently remove no longer shipped plugins
>> >> >> > from
>> >> >> > old versions of Audacity, but from what you previously said you
>> >> >> > don't
>> >> >> > want to do that, either in Audacity or in a PKG.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I know a PKG does not solve Linux or Windows (they have their own
>> >> >> > installation methods), and I see below you say making a PKG is a
>> >> >> > lot of work.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If we did not silently remove no longer available plugins then as
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> > said,
>> >> >> > I would probably change my mind, especially given others don't
>> >> >> > want
>> >> >> > absentee plugins in the menus..
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So would you consider tackling that objection? I consider it a
>> >> >> > "bug"
>> >> >> > created by the fix.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Despite Gale's opinion/arguments
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I don't especially like or condone what happens to upgraders on
>> >> >> > Mac,
>> >> >> > but
>> >> >> > I am also concerned at yet further delay. Where will it end?
>> >> >> > Getting
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > release out is looking to me like P0 now, trumping all other bugs.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I thought I made it clear that I did not want this to unreasonably
>> >> >> delay
>> >> >> release of 2.1.3.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I also said I’m OK with the duplicate working effects (only because
>> >> >> dealing with that issue is likely to be more complex and delay
>> >> >> release
>> >> >> even
>> >> >> further).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I recommend deciding we don't like some behaviour in good time, so
>> >> >> > we
>> >> >> > don't have this extra delay.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sorry for raising this at the last minute. Because of my usual
>> >> >> working
>> >> >> arrangement with multiple versions of Audacity on my machine I
>> >> >> didn’t
>> >> >> see
>> >> >> the issue until I did a thorough checkout of jc11.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> then, I am going to spin a jc12 that fixes
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1587 - already
>> >> >> >> have
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> fix.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > As I understand it, that fix does not target the problem effects
>> >> >> > on
>> >> >> > Mac,
>> >> >> > but all non-existent Nyquist effects on all platforms. Is that
>> >> >> > correct?
>> >> >> > If so,
>> >> >> > what about other effect types that may have a missing plugin, like
>> >> >> > VST
>> >> >> > or AU? Is the plan going forward to always have that inconsistency
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > to thus show "ghosts" for those, giving an unhelpful error
>> >> >> > message?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As I said above, AU and VST should not have ghost effects in the
>> >> >> menu
>> >> >> after installation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I’m talking about the upgrade from 2.1.2 to 2.1.3. The larger
>> >> >> discussion
>> >> >> of when and how to update the contents of the menus is something
>> >> >> I’ve
>> >> >> always
>> >> >> intended for after 2.1.3.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> — Bill
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1580
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> and addresses the main problem of
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What exactly does that do?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Clicking the link in the bug 1453 report brings me to a commit:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Bug 1587: Fix removes ghost Nyquist effects from the effects menu
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > generators from generate menu."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So are we showing "ghosts" for the five shipped Nyquist analysis
>> >> >> > effects?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I see changes for files affecting all plugin types except AU. What
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > those
>> >> >> > changes doing?  You say in the bug report comment "Nyquist (and
>> >> >> > built-ins) only amelioration."  Does this then remove the ghost
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > Hard
>> >> >> > Limiter, which is neither built-in or Nyquist?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> This IS the fix to ghosts, NOT a fix to legitimate duplicates
>> >> >> >> from
>> >> >> >> multiple installations.  No .pkg will be added (that would be a
>> >> >> >> ton
>> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> development and test work, we don't have a clear picture of what
>> >> >> >> we
>> >> >> >> want
>> >> >> >> for it so discussion too, and does not solve ghosts on
>> >> >> >> win/linux).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Well that is OK by me, if we are now also doing something to
>> >> >> > remove
>> >> >> > Hard Limiter and Leveler on all platforms. I was in favour of
>> >> >> > that.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> add/remove dialog update (again needs discussion about what we
>> >> >> >> want,
>> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> would need significant change to the manual).
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So doing jc12 is a reversal of my reversal.  We're not renaming
>> >> >> >> jc11
>> >> >> >> as
>> >> >> >> RC1.  Expecting to progress from jc12 to RC1 instead.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Gale, can you now make the change to the manual that you want to
>> >> >> >> make,
>> >> >> >> and let me know when you have, so that I can pull a new manual,
>> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> build jc12?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm afraid not, until I've built and tested on all three
>> >> >> > platforms.
>> >> >> > As
>> >> >> > above,
>> >> >> > I don't understand what your changes do, so I can't document them.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Gale
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > .
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> --James.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> >> >> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> >> >> >> [hidden email]
>> >> >> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> >> > engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> > Audacity-quality mailing list
>> >> >> > [hidden email]
>> >> >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> >> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> >> >> [hidden email]
>> >> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> > engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > Audacity-quality mailing list
>> >> > [hidden email]
>> >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> > engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Audacity-quality mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Audacity Manual for jc12 .

Cliff Scott
In reply to this post by Gale

On Feb 6, 2017, at 4:19 PM, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 6 February 2017 at 21:31, Cliff Scott <[hidden email]> wrote:

Just an observation here. In reading the manual for an earlier version some
time back I got the impression, apparently incorrectly, that to add a
Nyquist plugin manually I would put it in with the other Nyquist plugins
which were in the folder in the Applications folder.

This was correct until we moved to all-in-one.


I've done this for a while. I even mentioned on this list my puzzlement
regarding why the empty plugins folder in the
/Library/Applications Support/audacity folder and nothing was said. Later
I figured out that the added plugins were supposed to go there. I suspect
that there are others that misunderstood this as well so indeed it needs to
be mentioned for the user to be aware of the consequences when upgrading.

You can put LADSPA, VST and Nyquist plugins inside the "Plug-ins"
folder inside the bundle in 2.1.3 and they should work, but the Manual
now states that

~/Library/Application Support/audacity/Plug-Ins

is the Audacity Plug-Ins folder on Mac (note the tilde before "/Library").

I think I removed all or almost all the old references to using the folder
where Audacity was installed, and recommended
~/Library/Application Support/audacity/Plug-Ins .

By all means have a check over it:
http://alphamanual.audacityteam.org/man/Main_Page  .

If there is no jc12 tonight and you tell me there's a problem then I can
change it overnight. Put it in a new thread please.

Thanks


Gale


Gale,

Found this for Windows install where it still recommends putting Nyquist plug-ins in the existing Plug-ins folder in Program Files, not under the user data. http://alphamanual.audacityteam.org/man/Installing_Effect,_Generator_and_Analyzer_plug-ins_on_Windows. Putting a plugin in the user data audacity directory does work so it seems as if this should be changed for consistency. I only have XP so can't test on other versions. jc11 installed just fine in XP in Virtual Box on my Mac.

Also - http://alphamanual.audacityteam.org/man/Installing_and_updating_Audacity_on_Windows. Not sure if this needs changing, but it references putting the plugins in the Application folder rather than the "user" plug-ins folder.

Noticed that if installation is to another location than the original in Windows XP that you get the duplicate effects which I'm sure you are aware of.

That's all I found this eve. I don't know how Linux would be setup, but it looked on that page as if it was optional to make a user plugin directory or put effects in system directories.

Cliff


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Plans for jc12 - banish the ghosts.

Robert Hänggi
In reply to this post by Gale
I recently installed some Vamp plug-ins and it was rather a horror.
First, I had put them into the plug-ins folder, falsely assuming that
this should work.
After reading the manual (shame on me), I transferred them at the
correct location.
This took a while because I had to create the folder and set up a
environment variable to it.
BTW, if I recall correctly, the locations for 32-bit and 64-bit
versions seem to be interchanged in the manual.
Anyway, it was frustrating that the plug-ins were still listed as if
they were still in the standard plug-in folder.

Thus, I wouldn't mind if all ghost entries could be removed.
Personally, I would have added a menu entry "Cleanup" to effects etc.
to do it manually.
And also the option to run the Cleanup (dialogue) as soon as the user
tries to run a ghost plug-in.
I have really hundreds of plug-ins (since we have three menus not just
one...) and it seems a bit of a brute-force solution at present,
unless I'm missing something.

Robert

2017-02-07 4:31 GMT+01:00, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]>:

> On 6 February 2017 at 22:33, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6 February 2017 at 22:04, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6 February 2017 at 20:25, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 6 February 2017 at 19:22, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On 6 February 2017 at 18:34, Steve the Fiddle
>>> >> <[hidden email]>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On 6 February 2017 at 18:08, Bill Wharrie <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > On 2017/02/06, at 12:23 PM, Gale Andrews <[hidden email]>
>>> >> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > On 6 February 2017 at 14:06, James Crook <[hidden email]>
>>> >> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >> OK.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Feedback from Peter, Steve too agreeing with Bill about not
>>> >> >> >> having
>>> >> >> >> absent plug-ins in the menu.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Bill wrote:
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>> I think it makes us look a bit amateurish to provide menu
>>> >> >> >>> choices
>>> >> >> >>> for
>>> >> >> >>> plugins that do not exist.
>>> >> >> >> I agree too, which is why I created 1587.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > It is also amateurish in my opinion to silently remove plugins
>>> >> >> > that
>>> >> >> > were accidentally removed, leaving the user clueless.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Gale, what do you mean "accidentally removed"?
>>> >>
>>> >> I described that before, but I mean things like rename a folder the
>>> >> effect is in, move the plugin to a path that looks supported but
>>> >> isn't,
>>> >> such as Program Files\VST,  or move Nyquist plugins inside a
>>> >> subfolder in a supported path.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I'm assuming that you are concerned primarily about novice users and
>>> > shipped
>>> > plug-ins,
>>>
>>> Not entirely. We don't ship VST plugins, and any plugin format where
>>> Audacity doesn't support recursive search is susceptible.
>>>
>>> Consider that you can organise VST plugins by putting them in a
>>> subfolder, and Audacity will see them fine.
>>>
>>> Do the same for Nyquist plugins and Audacity doesn't see them.
>>>
>>> I think even some advanced users will trip up on that.
>>
>>
>> I must be missing the point,
>>
>> Putting myself in the place of an inexperienced user that has managed to
>> install one or more Nyquist plug-ins and have them work - If I move them
>> to
>> another location (not sure what would motivate me to do that) and then
>> find
>> that they are no longer shown in Audacity, would it not be obvious to me
>> that I should not have moved them?
>
> I don't think it is obvious in the case I gave where recurse works in one
> format and not another.  I think there was a case like this on the Forum
> that I answered sometime in the last year.
>
> We'll have to see what support or protest there is about informing the
> user after removing missing plugins.
>
>
> Gale
>
>>> >  as experienced users that have gone through the processes of
>>> > manually installing plug-ins must already have discovered how to make
>>> > plug-ins work.
>>> >
>>> > In the case of novice users and shipped plug-ins, it makes no sense to
>>> > me
>>> > that a user would start moving parts of the Audacity bundle into custom
>>> > locations, or renaming parts of the bundle, clueless about what they
>>> > are
>>> > doing, and still expect it to work.
>>>
>>> What I am talking about applies generally, not just to Mac.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gale
>>>
>>> >> > If the user removes a plug-in, then is it not better that Audacity
>>> >> > recognises the fact?
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes, and we have to recognise it, as Bill says, for deliberately
>>> >> removed
>>> >> plugins too.
>>> >>
>>> >> The difference is that the user who deliberately removed plugins
>>> >> doesn't
>>> >> need any prompt that the effect has been removed from the menu. The
>>> >> user who made an honest mistake does, IMO.
>>> >>
>>> >> It seems from the other thread that Steve agrees with me that if we
>>> >> check
>>> >> for existence on launch then remove missing plugins that we should
>>> >> inform the user.
>>> >>
>>> >> As I said in that thread, that would suit me fine.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Gale
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> >> You assume that they have been accidentally removed. What if they
>>> >> >> were
>>> >> >> deliberately removed? How can we tell?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> All that should happen with this fix is that an upgrader will not
>>> >> >> see
>>> >> >> menu
>>> >> >> items for non-existent effects. On Mac this applies only to effects
>>> >> >> that may
>>> >> >> have been in the plug-ins folder inside the Audacity folder inside
>>> >> >> Applications. System-wide or user-wide plug-ins (that is, in the
>>> >> >> proper
>>> >> >> system locations) will not be affected. IMO, for the vast majority
>>> >> >> of
>>> >> >> upgraders, this will be totally transparent - they will see the
>>> >> >> same
>>> >> >> set of
>>> >> >> Nyquist effects. Only those who have added their own effects to the
>>> >> >> plug-ins
>>> >> >> folder will see a loss of effects, and this was always the case if
>>> >> >> they
>>> >> >> over-wrote or deleted their old Audacity folder during or before
>>> >> >> upgrading.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Of course it is fine to silently remove no longer shipped plugins
>>> >> >> > from
>>> >> >> > old versions of Audacity, but from what you previously said you
>>> >> >> > don't
>>> >> >> > want to do that, either in Audacity or in a PKG.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > I know a PKG does not solve Linux or Windows (they have their own
>>> >> >> > installation methods), and I see below you say making a PKG is a
>>> >> >> > lot of work.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > If we did not silently remove no longer available plugins then as
>>> >> >> > I
>>> >> >> > said,
>>> >> >> > I would probably change my mind, especially given others don't
>>> >> >> > want
>>> >> >> > absentee plugins in the menus..
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > So would you consider tackling that objection? I consider it a
>>> >> >> > "bug"
>>> >> >> > created by the fix.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> Despite Gale's opinion/arguments
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > I don't especially like or condone what happens to upgraders on
>>> >> >> > Mac,
>>> >> >> > but
>>> >> >> > I am also concerned at yet further delay. Where will it end?
>>> >> >> > Getting
>>> >> >> > a
>>> >> >> > release out is looking to me like P0 now, trumping all other
>>> >> >> > bugs.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I thought I made it clear that I did not want this to unreasonably
>>> >> >> delay
>>> >> >> release of 2.1.3.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I also said I’m OK with the duplicate working effects (only because
>>> >> >> dealing with that issue is likely to be more complex and delay
>>> >> >> release
>>> >> >> even
>>> >> >> further).
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > I recommend deciding we don't like some behaviour in good time,
>>> >> >> > so
>>> >> >> > we
>>> >> >> > don't have this extra delay.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Sorry for raising this at the last minute. Because of my usual
>>> >> >> working
>>> >> >> arrangement with multiple versions of Audacity on my machine I
>>> >> >> didn’t
>>> >> >> see
>>> >> >> the issue until I did a thorough checkout of jc11.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> then, I am going to spin a jc12 that fixes
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1587 - already
>>> >> >> >> have
>>> >> >> >> the
>>> >> >> >> fix.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > As I understand it, that fix does not target the problem effects
>>> >> >> > on
>>> >> >> > Mac,
>>> >> >> > but all non-existent Nyquist effects on all platforms. Is that
>>> >> >> > correct?
>>> >> >> > If so,
>>> >> >> > what about other effect types that may have a missing plugin,
>>> >> >> > like
>>> >> >> > VST
>>> >> >> > or AU? Is the plan going forward to always have that
>>> >> >> > inconsistency
>>> >> >> > and
>>> >> >> > to thus show "ghosts" for those, giving an unhelpful error
>>> >> >> > message?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> As I said above, AU and VST should not have ghost effects in the
>>> >> >> menu
>>> >> >> after installation.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I’m talking about the upgrade from 2.1.2 to 2.1.3. The larger
>>> >> >> discussion
>>> >> >> of when and how to update the contents of the menus is something
>>> >> >> I’ve
>>> >> >> always
>>> >> >> intended for after 2.1.3.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> — Bill
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1580
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> and addresses the main problem of
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > What exactly does that do?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Clicking the link in the bug 1453 report brings me to a commit:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > "Bug 1587: Fix removes ghost Nyquist effects from the effects
>>> >> >> > menu
>>> >> >> > and
>>> >> >> > generators from generate menu."
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > So are we showing "ghosts" for the five shipped Nyquist analysis
>>> >> >> > effects?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > I see changes for files affecting all plugin types except AU.
>>> >> >> > What
>>> >> >> > are
>>> >> >> > those
>>> >> >> > changes doing?  You say in the bug report comment "Nyquist (and
>>> >> >> > built-ins) only amelioration."  Does this then remove the ghost
>>> >> >> > for
>>> >> >> > Hard
>>> >> >> > Limiter, which is neither built-in or Nyquist?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> This IS the fix to ghosts, NOT a fix to legitimate duplicates
>>> >> >> >> from
>>> >> >> >> multiple installations.  No .pkg will be added (that would be a
>>> >> >> >> ton
>>> >> >> >> of
>>> >> >> >> development and test work, we don't have a clear picture of what
>>> >> >> >> we
>>> >> >> >> want
>>> >> >> >> for it so discussion too, and does not solve ghosts on
>>> >> >> >> win/linux).
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Well that is OK by me, if we are now also doing something to
>>> >> >> > remove
>>> >> >> > Hard Limiter and Leveler on all platforms. I was in favour of
>>> >> >> > that.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> add/remove dialog update (again needs discussion about what we
>>> >> >> >> want,
>>> >> >> >> and
>>> >> >> >> would need significant change to the manual).
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> So doing jc12 is a reversal of my reversal.  We're not renaming
>>> >> >> >> jc11
>>> >> >> >> as
>>> >> >> >> RC1.  Expecting to progress from jc12 to RC1 instead.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Gale, can you now make the change to the manual that you want to
>>> >> >> >> make,
>>> >> >> >> and let me know when you have, so that I can pull a new manual,
>>> >> >> >> and
>>> >> >> >> build jc12?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > I'm afraid not, until I've built and tested on all three
>>> >> >> > platforms.
>>> >> >> > As
>>> >> >> > above,
>>> >> >> > I don't understand what your changes do, so I can't document
>>> >> >> > them.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Gale
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > .
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> --James.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> >> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>> >> >> >> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> >> Audacity-quality mailing list
>>> >> >> >> [hidden email]
>>> >> >> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> >> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>> >> >> > engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> > Audacity-quality mailing list
>>> >> >> > [hidden email]
>>> >> >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>> >> >> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> Audacity-quality mailing list
>>> >> >> [hidden email]
>>> >> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>> >> > engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> > Audacity-quality mailing list
>>> >> > [hidden email]
>>> >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>> >> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Audacity-quality mailing list
>>> >> [hidden email]
>>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>> > engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Audacity-quality mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Audacity Manual for jc12 .

James Crook
In reply to this post by Cliff Scott
Thanks Cliff.

I've made two more small corrections to the code.
My current plan is to fetch the manual in whatever state it is in on Wednesday morning, and build jc12's then.

--James.


On 2/7/2017 4:12 AM, Cliff Scott wrote:

      
On Feb 6, 2017, at 4:19 PM, Gale Andrews [hidden email] wrote:

On 6 February 2017 at 21:31, Cliff Scott [hidden email] wrote:

Just an observation here. In reading the manual for an earlier version some
time back I got the impression, apparently incorrectly, that to add a
Nyquist plugin manually I would put it in with the other Nyquist plugins
which were in the folder in the Applications folder.
This was correct until we moved to all-in-one.


I've done this for a while. I even mentioned on this list my puzzlement
regarding why the empty plugins folder in the
/Library/Applications Support/audacity folder and nothing was said. Later
I figured out that the added plugins were supposed to go there. I suspect
that there are others that misunderstood this as well so indeed it needs to
be mentioned for the user to be aware of the consequences when upgrading.
You can put LADSPA, VST and Nyquist plugins inside the "Plug-ins"
folder inside the bundle in 2.1.3 and they should work, but the Manual
now states that

~/Library/Application Support/audacity/Plug-Ins

is the Audacity Plug-Ins folder on Mac (note the tilde before "/Library").

I think I removed all or almost all the old references to using the folder
where Audacity was installed, and recommended
~/Library/Application Support/audacity/Plug-Ins .

By all means have a check over it:
http://alphamanual.audacityteam.org/man/Main_Page  .

If there is no jc12 tonight and you tell me there's a problem then I can
change it overnight. Put it in a new thread please.

Thanks


Gale


Gale,

Found this for Windows install where it still recommends putting Nyquist plug-ins in the existing Plug-ins folder in Program Files, not under the user data. http://alphamanual.audacityteam.org/man/Installing_Effect,_Generator_and_Analyzer_plug-ins_on_Windows <http://alphamanual.audacityteam.org/man/Installing_Effect,_Generator_and_Analyzer_plug-ins_on_Windows>. Putting a plugin in the user data audacity directory does work so it seems as if this should be changed for consistency. I only have XP so can't test on other versions. jc11 installed just fine in XP in Virtual Box on my Mac.

Also - http://alphamanual.audacityteam.org/man/Installing_and_updating_Audacity_on_Windows <http://alphamanual.audacityteam.org/man/Installing_and_updating_Audacity_on_Windows>. Not sure if this needs changing, but it references putting the plugins in the Application folder rather than the "user" plug-ins folder.

Noticed that if installation is to another location than the original in Windows XP that you get the duplicate effects which I'm sure you are aware of.

That's all I found this eve. I don't know how Linux would be setup, but it looked on that page as if it was optional to make a user plugin directory or put effects in system directories.

Cliff




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot


_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Plans for jc12 - banish the ghosts.

Gale
Administrator
In reply to this post by Robert Hänggi
I did finish what I thought were the vital changes to the Manual
overnight, just so that it's clear.


Gale

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
12