[SM-Commit] GIT changes to master grimoire by Thomas Orgis (a00b4739babeec9c924f790b393473f73271e715)
iuso at sourcemage.org
Fri Jul 11 07:58:05 EDT 2008
> Thomas Orgis (thomas-forum at orgis.org) wrote [08.07.09 19:04]:
>> Am Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:59:37 -0700
>> schrieb Eric Sandall <eric at sandall.us>:
>>> Quoting flux <flux at sourcemage.org>:
>>>> If we are to remove ardour in favor of ardour2, can we move ardour2 to
>>> I think that's what both Thomas and I meant, but if Thomas didn't,
>>> it's what I did. ;)
>> Well, I'd also like to have "cast ardour" give me the current verison of ardour.
>> One question is if we should "correct" upstream in the binary name:
>> They call it ardour2, apparently.
>> Alrighty then,
> That's tough. I'd really rather have the spell-name match the
> binary-name. I don't want to stray from upstream, but ardour2 sounds
> really dumb if there isn't going to be an ardour1... I'm torn, but
> leaning towards just calling it ardour (we correct for installation
> paths even when upstream wants to force it into something else after
> all..). Thoughts?
One other thing: I doubt that project files saved with ardour are
loadable with ardour2. And I know for certain that projects saved with
ardour2 aren't loadable with the upcoming 3.0 version (whose binary
happens to be named ardour3, btw). Maybe having separate spells for all
these isn't such a bad thing?
More information about the SM-Commit