I have a question...

[Hartmut Noack]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Cory K. schrieb:
> So I'm guessing you have nothing to say about the fact that the ML and
> IRC channels are what you guys make it? :)

I generally agree with you in that, so I felt not that eager to respond
- - yet if you ask me ....

You are the ones that know the most about the project, we as the users
are interested in. So there is allways some user-expert realtionship on
a list like this. The experts can help a lot to make a list run vivid..;-)


> Hartmut Noack wrote:

> 
>>>> Still I vote for a special Ubuntustudio-Forum also. The normal
>>>> Ubuntuforums are as unusable to maintain a fluent communication
>> with the
>>>> users
>>> Sorry. This decision was made to keep closer to the established Ubuntu
>>> community.
>> The Ubuntustudio-Forum was an integrated part of these forums.
>> Music-Production is not desktop enough to be of much interest for the
>> established users of any computersystem geared towards desktop-users. To
>> be perfectly honest: as a music-maker I do not feel home amongst the
>> vast majority of people that only want to know, how to connect their
>> ipods and how to play encrypted DVDs...
> 
> I'm sorry you feel this way.

It is all pragmatic - no offence ment to the non-audio-interested. I
wrote about 1000 or so posts/replies in several Linux-Blackboards 80% or
so to help others to make their every-day-tasks run OK...

I just wish, there was a subforum where audio-enthusiasts could
congregate. "Normals" would be welcomed there of course....

> 
>>>> as the Canonincal Repositories are inadequate to host all  needed
>>>> packages in versions that are recent enough to be usable (Ardour needs
>>>> to be upgraded every single time its sources are upgraded by Pauls
>> team,
>>>> same thing with Rosegarden, Muse, you name it...).
>>> This is not possible as packages need to go through testing.
>> Testing is most important - that is agreed. So if one tests Ardour 2.0.2
>> he/she will find dozens of bugs some of them severe, that are fixed in
>> 2.0.4/5 - so having a more stable app in the repos would be quite okay,
>> would it be not?
>>
>>
>>> Blindly
>>> uploading updates is not the way. Also, things can take a little longer
>>> because we sync our packages from Debian.
>> Of course it would not be wise, to have a new package of Ardour 2 days
>> after every given source-release but in 2-3 weeks this could be done I
>> think. To wait half a year without getting the bugs fixed is no option
>> for productive users.
>>
>> Whatif a crash-bug would be found in apache? Would there not be an
>> upgrade before the next official release?
> 
> Though your reasoning is sound, its just not the way things work.
> There's a chain the packages must go through. If we build bleeding-edge
> packages it benifits less users than if that package was in Debian then
> Ubuntu.

I heared some about the processof getting packages in the official
repos, so I understand, that those repos cannot be the right place for
such upgrades. Still they are needed and if I understand the reasons for
 having such a strict regime with the repos, the No 1 goal is stability.
And as audio-apps are still developped very fast newer means more
stable. There should be a repo for at least bug-fix releases of stuff as
important as Ardour or Rosegarden.

Again: I would be honoured to help - I got a rootserver running with a
contract including unlimited transfer. So a repo with about 30 important
 apps in recent versions could be set up  within a month.



>> Visibility is communication, communication is life - that is the way of
>> the web.
>>
>> best reg.
>>
>> HZN
> Just trust in that we have things under control. ;)
> 

I trust, what I see };-] ;-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG3TEq1Aecwva1SWMRAvp9AJ9DDV4oSqTW/OsAEwsZWq59KGCWYACgj4oR
g2nT7o/hOVX9TS9USm+BvVU=
=f3fc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----