Re: [Rosegarden-devel] linked_segments_ian branch merged

[D. M. M. <mic...@ro...>]

On Sunday, September 18, 2011, Ian Gardner wrote:

> Incidentally, that "undo twice" bug/quirk/feature is not new to linked
> segments. You have to undo twice to fully undo an ordinary segment copy
> operation also.

Now that you mention it, I've been ignoring that quirk for years, and I knew 
about it.  That probably means nobody will notice or care very much if you 
simply ignore my previous comment and leave well enough alone on that front.

As far as showing what is connected to what, that does get a bit complicated.  
You could make quite a mess of losing track of what is connected to what, but 
it's hard to conceive of a really good mechanism for showing this.

I guess for starters, being able to change the labels on each linked segment 
independently is a bit confusing.  I start with "Piano" and link copy it to 
another "Piano" then change the latter to something else, and I've lost track 
of any idea where it came from originally, and that it's linked to something 
else.  Linked copies should probably keep the same label as their parents 
until they become real copies.

That and showing linked copies in a different fill style might be just 
narrowly sufficient.  You see a segment in the "not a real segment" fill 
style, and you see the name.  Users could set up color and label properties to 
help themselves keep track of what from what, although lazy users just 
flinging things willy nilly will wind up with a passel of yellow "Acoustic 
Grand Piano" segments with no discernible interrelationship.

I don't think there's a lot we can do to discourage that kind of problem, 
really.  The tools are there, but Rosegarden can't do everything for you.  If 
we tried to, say, change the base color on the linked segments to some 
variation of the parent, somebody (me, as likely as anyone else!) would be 
upset that it didn't flow nicely with their pretty color scheme.
-- 
D. Michael McIntyre