TuxGuitar / Discussion / Open Discussion: Speed up TuxGuitar development

Helmar Gerloni - 2023-02-22

Hello Julian,

first of all I would like to thank you for your great work over all these years. TuxGuitar is great software that is still loved by many people.

Recently the homepage http://www.tuxguitar.com.ar/ disappeared. The forum at https://tuxguitar.herac.com.ar/ and the donation link are no longer functional.

There are quite a few patches and forks that are not revised or integrated upstream.

Are you still working on TuxGuitar?

Is there anything the community can do to support your work? For example, someone could review patches and push them to the SVN, if you give her/him write access, or work on the open tickets. Just let us know what would be OK for you.

Regards, Helmar.

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
- sepp2gl - 2023-02-22
  
  Hi Helmar,
  
  I just tried to check the m.b. web-page.
  
  My malware-protection issues a warning to not load this page.
  
  Indeed I agree, that TG is extremely valuable.
  Maybe not as powerful as GP but without the cost.
  
  kr, Gerhard
  
  Am 22.02.23 um 13:40 schrieb Helmar Gerloni:
  
  Hello Julian,
  
  first of all I would like to thank you for your great work over all
  these years. TuxGuitar is great software that is still loved by many
  people.
  
  Recently the homepage http://www.tuxguitar.com.ar/ disappeared. The
  forum at https://tuxguitar.herac.com.ar/ and the donation link are no
  longer functional.
  
  There are quite a few patches and forks that are not revised or
  integrated upstream.
  
  Are you still working on TuxGuitar?
  
  Is there anything the community can do to support your work? For
  example, someone could review patches and push them to the SVN, if you
  give her/him write access, or work on the open tickets. Just let us
  know what would be OK for you.
  
  Regards, Helmar.
  
  Speed up TuxGuitar development
  https://sourceforge.net/p/tuxguitar/discussion/522984/thread/02743a8637/?limit=25#49aa
  
  Sent from sourceforge.net because you indicated interest in
  https://sourceforge.net/p/tuxguitar/discussion/522984/
  
  To unsubscribe from further messages, please visit
  https://sourceforge.net/auth/subscriptions/
  
  alternate
  
  If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

sepp2gl - 2023-02-22

Hi Helmar,

I just tried to check the m.b. web-page.
My malware-protection issues a warning to not load this page.

Indeed I agree, that TG is extremely valuable.
Maybe not as powerful as GP but without the cost.

kr, Gerhard

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

guiv - 2023-03-29

Hello

And thank you so much Julian for this fantastic software.
I fully agree with Helmar, this project definitely deserves to be maintained!

Is there anything we can do to help?
I am currently working on a possible enhancement, what would be the best way to propose a contribution?

Best regards,
guiv

Last edit: guiv 2023-03-29

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Helmar Gerloni - 2023-03-30

I started a fork of this repository on Github:

https://github.com/helge17/tuxguitar

The Java code is (almost) unchanged, but I cleaned up the build scripts, removed 32 bit, OSS and other obsolete files.

But I think the most important thing for users is to have binary builds ready for installation. You can find them at

https://github.com/helge17/tuxguitar/releases

Everyone is welcome to send patches and pull requests or to fork the code. I will try to integrate the changes into my repository and sometimes update the builds.

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
- guiv - 2023-03-30
  
  Thanks, that's good news!
  However I must admit I am a little bit confused, it seems there are quite a few forks in Github. Including a "2.0beta"??
  I will first need a little time to learn how to use Github (I am absolutely not a professional developer!), and then probably submit a pull request (see https://sourceforge.net/p/tuxguitar/feature-requests/85/)
  
  If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
  - Helmar Gerloni - 2023-03-30
    
    The 2.0beta fork is not very active anymore, it uses a different file format and I was not able to build it for Android. The changes were also never integrated into the 1.x version. So I think it's better to stay with the 1.x version and maybe port some changes from 2.0beta back to 1.x.
    
    As far as I can see, all the other TuxGuitar forks are just clones of the SF repository here, so I decided to start a new one.
    
    If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
    - guiv - 2023-03-30
      
      OK, thanks that's clear
      
      If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
- mike belfie - 2023-04-30
  
  why remove 32bit? too hard to build for with new features? should keep em, i have old machines that i use in the jam room for this kinda thing. not to say it's a popular option but i'd keep as much compatibility as we can... if we can
  
  If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
  - Helmar Gerloni - 2023-04-30
    
    The last SWT version with 32-bit support was 4.9 from 2018 (https://archive.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops4/). Many Linux distributions have completely discontinued 32-bit support or have dropped the 32-bit SWT version. In practice, it would still be possible to provide 32-bit binaries, but to save resources for more important things, I decided to remove 32-bit support.
    
    However, since we are trying to keep the file format of our new version compatible with 1.5.6, you can continue to use Julian's binaries for the near future.
    
    I am also considering builds for ARM or other architectures. You can already build TuxGuitar on some other architectures (see https://packages.debian.org/sid/tuxguitar-alsa), but to provide reliable binaries takes a bit more time...
    
    If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

carsten neubauer - 2023-04-04

Hi Helmar, I moved to debian Salsa with the 2.0 thing... Got a pipeline there that builds tuxguitar-2.0beta. In the last days I looked at differences in the build process of the source trees. My next goal would be to bring 2.0beta to the latest svn-revision gradually (if possible). Maybe we should join forces? Anyway, greetings from northern germany :-)

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

carsten neubauer - 2023-04-04

I played around with the file formats, and found that TuxGuitar can export its own files in backwards compatible format: https://github.com/pterodactylus42/tuxguitar-2.0beta/issues/4

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Helmar Gerloni - 2023-04-05

Hi Carsten,

I also played around with 2.0 some time ago, but recently decided to continue with the latest 1.x version from the Sourceforge SVN. You can find my repositories at https://github.com/helge17/, including binary builds for 1.x and 2.x.

A few thoughts on the two versions:

1.x
- Julian has made many changes to the 1.x version after the 2.0 fork was made, e.g. he added a version with JavaFX instead of SWT. Maybe it would be better to switch to JavaFX in the long run? I don't know.
- I cleaned up a bit in my 1.x version, removed old build scripts and (hopefully ;-) improved the build process.
- There is already a pull request on Github from guiv42 that I want to merge.
- Maybe Julian will resume his work on TuxGuitar one day? He would definitely stick with the 1.x version.

2.0
- The 2.0 version still uses SWT (only), and as far as I can see, many improvements are based on SWT.
- 2.0 misses a lot of updates from the 1.x tree.
- 2.0 can not be built for Android.
- 2.0 uses a new file format: When you safe your files then the new format is used without any warning. Older versions of TuxGuitar are not able to open the files any more. I think it would be better to keep the old format, at least for a while. There is already a lot of confusion about the different versions and forks, so I think an additional change to the file format will make things too difficult for the average user.

I think it's better to continue with the 1.x version and maybe port some changes from 2.0 back to 1.x. But I have to admit that I'm not a software developer, so I can create packages and do some basic programming tasks like merging pull requests, but I can't maintain the Java code.

Right now I will occasionally work on my 1.x branch, but I have no problem with someone stepping in as a new(?) upstream developer (you, Julian, ...?), whether it's version 1.x or 2.0. I also agree with any repository, Github, Salsa, Sourceforge, whatever. I helped to get version 1.5.6 into Debian and have a salsa account (helger). But I'm not sure if Debian wants to have Windows/MacOS/Android software in Salsa. Anyway, I would contribute as much as I can, fork his/her repository, send pull requests, make binary builds etc.

Regards, Helmar.

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

guiv - 2023-04-05

Guten Abend ;-)
Nice to see this discussion is going on.
I read a bit some old discussions in SF, it seems it's not the first time there is a "pause" in TuxGuitar's development by Julian. But to be honest I am a little bit worried by the sudden disappearance of the web site, forum, etc. I effectively fear a fork could be the only way forward.
- I understand Helmar's approach is to build a "direct successor" of 1.5.6, and to provide easily installable builds.
- I did not yet play so much with the 2.0beta that I just succeeded to build, but I guess the objective was different, probably to provide enhancements.
I'm a newbie here, so I don't have a valuable opinion on this question. Anyway, for sure it would be better if we can succeed to "join forces" as mentioned by Carsten. Well it's easy to say, but I must admit I have no idea of the required effort to merge the 2 initiatives.
I could easily port to 2.0 the pull request I have created in Helmar's 1.x repo. On the other side, with a little help and a lot of patience I could probably contribute to backporting some 2.0 evolutions in the 1.x.
So I will follow your discussion with attention!

Regards,
guiv

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

mike belfie - 2023-04-11

don't know how i can help without much relevant programming chops but i know software development (though php, obj-c, web, git are my forte) and once i get my head around the inner workings i'll be of better use.

i'll subscribe here, keep me posted. this app has had ALOT of use from me over the years and i'm in no matter where it goes or where we take it.

could be a bad thing though... i can get annoying 🤷 hahaha
like i have a million ideas already that would make things sooo much easier (for me anyways ;p) but i can't help with coding in java (i think that's what it's in, been a while since i looked at the source).

long story short, i'll start prodding around anyhow. d_(:D)_\m/

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Simon Slater - 2023-04-29

Hello, I'd like to help out with this a little as well :).

I love TuxGuitar, but it's become a bit of a nuisance to keep up with where to grab the 'most recent version' from, because of the split in development.

The way I use TuxGuitar is to learn a song and to play along with it at increasing speeds.
Every time I use it, it feels clunky to practice a small section of a song, and I think "I should just write the code for this". I'd like to work on being able to select a section, set a loop, and easily change the playback speed, and maybe even add a '1234' beat at the start of the loop. I'd need to make a toolbar for the playback settings, and allow click+drag to select multiple notes on the tab. In theory, not too complex.

However, from what I can see, it won't be as simple as writing some code and submitting.
I think it'd be good if we could come up with a todo list to work through to bring TuxGuitar up to a good standard. Get all the goodies from both versions, and then I'd suggest calling it TuxGuitar 3, to hopefully avoid any further splits in development or confusion.

EDIT:
Oh I forgot to ask, which version are we choosing to work on? Is everyone on board with the same version? I think really it's just pick one and go for it.

Todo List so far:
Vote on a TuxGuitar version to fork.
Make a clear link to the new codebase we're all to work on(I prefer github, it's easy to contribute).
Write a list of features that need to be merged from the other version

Last edit: Simon Slater 2023-04-29

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
- Helmar Gerloni - 2023-04-29
  
  Hello Simon,
  
  glad to hear you are willing to contribute!
  
  As you can see from the discussion above, I "voted" for the 1.x version and created a new repository at https://github.com/helge17/tuxguitar. I also try to integrate patches from the 2.0beta version (https://github.com/helge17/tuxguitar-2.0beta). Under "Releases" you can find binary packages for both versions. You can also start discussions and open issues for bugs or TODOs.
  
  2.0beta has a lot of GUI improvements, you might want to have a look at them.
  
  I'm happy to include your patches or pull requests.
  
  Currently I avoid real version numbers for the 1.x fork and use 2023-04-19-snapshot etc instead. But sooner or later a new version has to come out. I tend to continue with 1.5.7 or maybe 1.6 to indicate that the transition to this new fork should (hopefully) be as painless as possible for the user.
  
  Regards, Helmar.
  
  If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

guiv - 2023-04-29

Hello all. Nice to see the TuxGuitar community still lives!

Todo List so far:
Vote on a TuxGuitar version to fork.

I tried to understand the story behind this "2.0beta thing": helge17 repo is a fork of pterodactylus42 repo, which forked pcarmona79 repo, where it is stated "This repository was uploaded from a copy of the deleted https://github.com/cyclopsian/tuxguitar"
A bit difficult to establish the link with the historical branch here in SF. The last reference I found is here, and it's almost 4 years old.
Long story short : I cannot understand this history, and I just can't find either a realistic path for a merge.

And I can't reasonably imagine a future for TuxGuitar not in continuity with Julian's work.
So I'll stick to https://github.com/helge17/tuxguitar repo, where I definitely appreciate the great work done to simplify build process, and to provide easily installable builds. Already pushed a few evolutions there (thanks Helmar!).
Hope we can provide significant enhancements there. Currently working on a fix for this problem seen by several users.

regards,
guiv

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

mike belfie - 2023-04-30

can anyone get a hold of julian?

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

mike belfie - 2023-04-30

@akdmia

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
- guiv - 2023-04-30
  
  I guess it was the original motivation for this post: re-establish contact with Julian, yet without success.
  This is also a reason why I preferred to contribute to the "1.x" fork: as mentioned by Helmar, should Julian resume his work on TG one day, then it would be a lot easier to backport modifications implemented in direct continuity with 1.5.6.
  
  If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Simon Slater - 2023-05-03

I think I'm a bit torn between the versions.

Personally, I'd vote for v2.0, because I can see the improvements, both in the GUI and from the git commits. 1.x has some missing git comments :(. That being said, the midi playback didn't work on 2.0 for me(ubuntu), but does in 1.x. I compiled both from the helge17 forks.

I'm not too sure how hard it would be to backport the changes from 2.0, because there has been a lot of work on it(see below).

I do however like the idea of TuxGuitar working on android, that's just kinda useful. I couldn't compile either 1.x or 2.0 in android studio due to a gradle build error.

Fork History
Looking through the git log, I've found the point where the two projects have split. Both projects have different git commit hashes, but their commits seem to sync up to 24/March/2019.

You can look through the git log and find this line which is the last synced commit for both 2.0 and 1.x.

Author: akdmia <akdmia@e5ace225-184b-0410-aeed-e0aa2ff36a70> Date: Sun Mar 24 15:21:59 2019 +0000

Since the two projects went their own ways:
TuxGuitar 1.x fork has 321 new commits.
TuxGuitar 2.0 fork has 381 new commits.

TuxGuitar 1.x only has git commit comments for the most recent 134 commits. Leaving us with 187 commits straight after the split with no comments.
TuxGuitar 2.0 has git commit comments all the way up to the split.

Last edit: Simon Slater 2023-05-03
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
- guiv - 2023-05-03
  
  Thank you Simon for this detailed analysis of the history. Just 2 questions:
  - do the commits with no comment in 1.x correspond to akdmia's commits?
  - do you know where the 1.5.6 release is in these 2 branches?
  
  If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Yes, the commits without any comments in 1.x git log all say they're akdmia's.

See below for the version history and commits. I was looking through the git log manually for any changes to TGVersion.java, then I found this really useful git command to just show me all the git commits and the changes to that file.

git log --follow -p -- TuxGuitar-lib/src/org/herac/tuxguitar/util/TGVersion.java

Note: v1.x and 2.0 last shared commit was on Mar 24 2019.

For the v1.x fork

Dates the version changed:
v1.5.6 - Apr 22 2022
v1.5.5 - Jun 18 2021
v1.5.4 - May 12 2020
v1.5.3 - Dec  9 2019 - after split
v1.5.2 - Aug  2 2018 - before split
v1.5.1 - Apr 30 2018
v1.5.0 - Feb  2 2018 - before that it was v1.4.20170227

1.5.3 version was changed 7 commits after the two projects split.
1.5.2 version was changed about 25 commits before the two projects split.
So the project split in between v1.5.2 and v1.5.3


Here's the commits where the version number was changed.

v1.5.6
commit 810ed4a9fc76c3d0cc67a4a455a1b75d87be59df
Author: akdmia <akdmia@e5ace225-184b-0410-aeed-e0aa2ff36a70>
Date:   Fri Apr 22 19:06:12 2022 +0000


v1.5.5
commit 069a97819059ee6ba0251a0f3c1ae9f7e8a5f0ea
Author: akdmia <akdmia@e5ace225-184b-0410-aeed-e0aa2ff36a70>
Date:   Fri Jun 18 19:54:16 2021 +0000


v1.5.4
commit 21e02eb99ac94c66f0a016a8d841652f7873a379
Author: akdmia <akdmia@e5ace225-184b-0410-aeed-e0aa2ff36a70>
Date:   Tue May 12 13:50:24 2020 +0000


v1.5.3
commit 9e4be8e1885b590c449dcfb739dede50ca8c3b5f
Author: akdmia <akdmia@e5ace225-184b-0410-aeed-e0aa2ff36a70>
Date:   Mon Dec 9 16:57:50 2019 +0000


v1.5.2
commit a512ed0c12e5774b84afc612367b41bc04ab1b36
Author: akdmia <akdmia@e5ace225-184b-0410-aeed-e0aa2ff36a70>
Date:   Thu Aug 2 21:24:48 2018 +0000


v1.5.1
commit e24b69009b51e482135560be9cad371bafe28c07
Author: akdmia <akdmia@e5ace225-184b-0410-aeed-e0aa2ff36a70>
Date:   Mon Apr 30 11:51:39 2018 +0000


v1.5.0 - before that it was v1.4.20170227
commit 6ae4c9b73a8100e24ff9cf632e693516d5b5815c
Author: akdmia <akdmia@e5ace225-184b-0410-aeed-e0aa2ff36a70>
Date:   Fri Feb 2 13:09:42 2018 +0000

For the v2.0 fork

Date the version changed:
v2.0.0 - May 10 2019 - before it was v1.5.2


Here's the commit where the version number was changed.

v2.0.0 - before it was v1.5.2
commit 77dc8224e680088111e961cc4790a94c17b28c3e
Author: meditator <cycl0ps@tuta.io>
Date:   Fri May 10 21:50:14 2019 -0500

Unfortunately I think my analysis has only made it more confusing haha. The project split in between v1.5.2 and v1.5.3.

Last edit: Simon Slater 2023-05-04

guiv - 2023-05-04

Post awaiting moderation.

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Speed up TuxGuitar development

Forums

Help

Speed up TuxGuitar development

Speed up TuxGuitar development

Forums

Help

Speed up TuxGuitar development document.SUBSCRIPTION_OPTIONS = { "thing": "topic", "subscribed": false, "url": "subscribe", "icon": { "css": "fa fa-envelope-o" } };

Speed up TuxGuitar development