From: Richard B. <ric...@fe...> - 2004-02-20 09:58:15
|
On Friday 20 February 2004 09:42, Guillaume Laurent wrote: > > Aren't we just sacrificing some of our functionality here? > > It's either that or we force rg files to carry the right extension, we > can't have both. Well I vote for not changing anything then. I don't see a need to break things to shoehorn in some unlikely if "correct" technology. From a user perspective it's not correct. > > I certainly > > don't think we should losing backwards compatability in any way at all at > > this stage. Rosegarden-4 (1.0) must be able to handle RG files pretty > > much as have been in circulation for the last year or so. > > I doubt there's been that many, really. It worst a simple external > converter and an FAQ entry will be enough. That's not the point, Guillaume. Anyway you blithely saying that you doubt there are that many is a) wrong and also b) doesn't inspire any of our existing users and kind testers now does it? Logic or Cubase would't expect a user to run an external command line tool to import their files. Why should we? Especially so close to beta and 1.0 we shouldn't be doing anything to scare off testers. This is more about our attitude to our users than it is about this mere technical point. Try stepping outside of your developer's shoes for a minute and consider someone working with our software in a studio. Ron at Mirror Image uses Rosegarden, plenty of people on the user's list have posted songs too - they are a fraction of the people that will have tried it out. Consequently this functionality needs to be seamless or not at all. R |