Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-commit - Re: [SM-Commit] GIT changes to master grimoire by Thomas Orgis (a00b4739babeec9c924f790b393473f73271e715)

sm-commit AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Source Mage code commit list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Juuso Alasuutari <iuso AT sourcemage.org>
  • To: sm-commit AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Commit] GIT changes to master grimoire by Thomas Orgis (a00b4739babeec9c924f790b393473f73271e715)
  • Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:58:05 +0300

flux wrote:
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
ardour?
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,

Thomas.

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?

Juuso




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page