From: Tim M. <or...@le...> - 2012-09-05 16:07:00
Attachments:
rosegarden_plugin-dialog-patch
|
This concerns bug #3560849 reported recently (2012-08-23) by Ted Felix: 1. Launch rg. 2. Studio > Manage Synth Plugins. 3. Configure synth plug-in #1 by selecting a plug-in from the dropdown. 4. Click on "Controls" button for #1. Controls dialog will appear. 5. Close the controls dialog. 6. Close the Manage Synth Plugins dialog. 7. Studio > Manage Synth Plugins. 8. Click on "Controls" button next to #1. 9. Crash. I think I might have accidentally fixed this a few months ago, while tackling a similar bug in my own copy of Rosegarden: 1. Launch rg. 2. Studio > Audio Mixer. 3. Click on any one of the plug-in buttons below the sliders. 4. Close the plug-in dialog. 5. Close the Audio Mixer dialog. 6. Studio > Audio Mixer. 7. Click on the same plug-in button as before. 8. Crash. The problem, it seems, is in "src/gui/application/RosegardenMainWindow.cpp." The conditional statement at line 7551 is apparently not doing its job, so (I'm guessing) line 7586 can refer to a parent that probably no longer exists. I don't know how to fix this right, but my hack involves hard coding line 7586 to refer directly to "this" rather than to "parent." I occupy a small corner of the Rosegarden world, using only the notation editor, along with DSSI-softsynth and LADSPA plugins. Anything that I do to fix my own copy of Rosegarden could easily damage some other aspect of the program, and I would never know it, because I never go there. My understanding of Rosegarden and C++ is limited. That's a fancy way of saying that I don't mean for the patch that I've attached to be applied as is. I've included it only because it shows exactly what I've done to make the problem go away. It's one of about a dozen patches that I routinely apply to my own copy of Rosegarden (svn_12984 currently) to make life easier. The last part of the patch concerning "src/gui/dialogs/AudioPluginDialog.cpp" is not directly related to this problem but does involve the LADSPA plugins. It solves the highly annoying problem of LADSPA-plugin controls initially displaying some screwy default settings, instead of showing the settings previously saved in the .rg file. It's the same problem that Holger Marzen has mentioned a couple of times. Tim |
From: Ted F. <te...@te...> - 2012-09-05 21:44:59
|
On 09/05/2012 12:06 PM, Tim Munro wrote: > I think I might have accidentally fixed this a few months ago, while > tackling a similar bug in my own copy of Rosegarden: Thanks a bunch for this. I've copied it over to the bug tracker as the mailing lists on sourceforge are a real pain to use as an archive. Even if this patch isn't quite right, it helps me in one very big way. It points me to a place in this 700,000+ (really?) lines of code we call rosegarden where I can start looking around. For me, that's a *big* help. I can usually take it from there and have things fixed pretty quickly. Feel free to open bug reports and post more patches. I really appreciate them. Ted. |
From: D. M. M. <ros...@gm...> - 2012-09-05 22:08:12
|
On 09/05/2012 05:18 PM, Ted Felix wrote: > Feel free to open bug reports and post more patches. I really > appreciate them. I agree. I'd be interested in looking at anything and everything he applies to his personal copy of Rosegarden. If it's worth him keeping up with, it's definitely worth looking at what it is and why it's needed. It's hard to imagine anything but good coming from that. -- D. Michael McIntyre |
From: Richard B. <ric...@fe...> - 2012-09-06 06:01:14
|
On 6 Sep 2012, at 00:08, "D. Michael McIntyre" <ros...@gm...> wrote: > On 09/05/2012 05:18 PM, Ted Felix wrote: > >> Feel free to open bug reports and post more patches. I really >> appreciate them. > > I agree. I'd be interested in looking at anything and everything he > applies to his personal copy of Rosegarden. If it's worth him keeping > up with, it's definitely worth looking at what it is and why it's needed. Chris is probably thinking this but I'll say it (after using it a bit now) but Mercurial/Git would probably make this kind of thing i.e.long branches/local commits/potential merge somewhat easier. If course I'm also interested in this myself too because my R4Win updates are still so infrequent that it annoys me I have to manually merge every time I want to integrate latest. Hg probably wouldn't help here either that much actually.. Perhaps what I'm trying to say is... um, still thinking about it.. a bit. R |
From: D. M. M. <ros...@gm...> - 2012-09-06 06:39:53
|
On 09/06/2012 01:54 AM, Richard Bown wrote: > Chris is probably thinking this but I'll say it (after using it a bit now) but Mercurial/Git would probably make this kind of thing i.e.long branches/local commits/potential merge somewhat easier. I think the handful of people who are currently doing real work on Rosegarden these days would probably be fine with the switch to git, as they're all wrestling with some irritating git-svn bridge thing anyway. If you guys decide to go that route, I'm completely fine with that, but I won't be staying on in any kind of development or management role after the switch. That would be the end for me, and I'd probably be pretty content to use that excellent opportunity to exit stage left, to be perfectly honest about it. The truth is I do have some talent for this kind of thing, but it's not what I'm best at, and never will be. Ten years of suffering along with my own mediocrity seems like just about enough, and I was already thinking about making this official come December. It really does seem like an excellent opportunity to change over to distributed version control. Assuming Chris is amenable. -- D. Michael McIntyre |
From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2012-09-06 08:23:34
|
On 6 September 2012 06:54, Richard Bown <ric...@fe...> wrote: > If course I'm also interested in this myself too because my R4Win updates are still so infrequent that it annoys me I have to manually merge every time I want to integrate latest. The reason you have trouble merging is that you arsed about indiscriminately with the directory structure when you made your branch. That would probably be a slightly easier thing to maintain with a newer version control system than Subversion, but only if you had been using it when you branched in the first place. Chris |
From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2012-09-06 08:31:44
|
On 6 September 2012 07:39, D. Michael McIntyre <ros...@gm...> wrote: > It really does seem like an excellent opportunity to change over to > distributed version control. Assuming Chris is amenable. I'm broadly in favour of using a distributed system, though I don't have the same antipathy to Subversion that some do. My preference is for Mercurial, and normally I'd try to persuade people to use that over git, which I see as the C++ of version control systems, and I don't mean that in a good way -- but really I have less stake in this than anyone at this point. There's not much point in my arguing for Mercurial if all of the active developers are already using git. (I would be able to help with the transition if Mercurial was involved, e.g. converting / pruning the existing history as appropriate, but I've nothing to offer for a conversion to git.) There are all sorts of things I would love to be doing with the Rosegarden code, and much as I might prefer to do them in a Mercurial repo, it's not the version control system that's holding me back -- it's entirely my own ability to find any time for it. Chris |
From: Richard B. <ric...@fe...> - 2012-09-06 08:39:54
|
On 6 Sep 2012, at 10:31, Chris Cannam <ca...@al...> wrote: > I'm broadly in favour Gah. R |
From: Richard B. <ric...@fe...> - 2012-09-06 08:37:24
|
On 6 Sep 2012, at 10:23, Chris Cannam <ca...@al...> wrote: > The reason you have trouble merging is that you arsed about > indiscriminately with the directory structure when you made your > branch. Hey MF. I had to make those changes to get QtCreator to play nice. If it wasn't such a dorky structure in the first place and the historical build tools actually arsing _worked_ like anything approaching sensible then it would be such a complete trainwreck. Jesus I could write a fucking manual build script and it would be more effective. Anyway I won't go back there. No. Won't do it. I've already bunged my branch into bitbucket anyway and you lot can just assume it a fork (or death) from now on. Will make it public once there are any deviations from what is in SF. Usual pigheadedness from Cannam. R |
From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2012-09-06 08:47:02
|
On 6 September 2012 09:37, Richard Bown <ric...@fe...> wrote: > Anyway I won't go back there. No. Won't do it. I've already bunged my branch into bitbucket anyway and you lot can just assume it a fork (or death) from now on. Will make it public once there are any deviations from what is in SF. Usual pigheadedness from Cannam. *blink* OK, I'm properly baffled. All I said was that the upstream project switching now probably wouldn't help your merge very much. Chris |
From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2012-09-06 08:49:30
|
On 6 September 2012 09:46, Chris Cannam <ca...@al...> wrote: > All I said was that the upstream project switching now probably > wouldn't help your merge very much. ... admittedly, I didn't say it very politely. Sorry. I'm in almost as bad a mood at the moment as you apparently are. Chris |
From: Richard B. <ric...@fe...> - 2012-09-06 09:40:22
|
On 6 Sep 2012, at 10:49, Chris Cannam <ca...@al...> wrote: > Sorry. Oh I forgive you. *mwah* Anyway a (D)VCS is kind of wasted on most of it. Might as well keep it in hard copy. R |
From: D. M. M. <ros...@gm...> - 2012-09-24 08:02:46
|
On 09/05/2012 05:18 PM, Ted Felix wrote: > On 09/05/2012 12:06 PM, Tim Munro wrote: >> I think I might have accidentally fixed this a few months ago, while >> tackling a similar bug in my own copy of Rosegarden: > > Thanks a bunch for this. I've copied it over to the bug tracker as > the mailing lists on sourceforge are a real pain to use as an archive. After Holger's effusive praise of the result of applying both of Tim's patches, I decided to go ahead and commit that as we found it. It may not be perfect, and you, Ted, may find a better solution one day, but in the meantime an effusive seal of approval from a user is decent quality control. If Tim has any more of these gems laying around, he should definitely toss them our way. I'm particularly impressed with the detective work required to work out how FloatEdit et al. were managing to turn sensible values into complete gibberish. It's all very good, thoughtful work, and I appreciate it greatly. -- D. Michael McIntyre |