Re: [Denemo-devel] Release 1.0.8

[Jeremiah Benham]

Do you want me to make a 1.1 branch now? I am a bit confused. So I will make a 1.0.9 tarball so that the release will be labelled 1.0.9 for the mingw binary.

Did the librubberband stuff work correctly with the mingw binary?


Jeremiah

On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Richard Shann <address@hidden> wrote:

Success! The windows binary
http://www.denemo.org/~jjbenham/gub/uploads/denemo-0.0.0-0.mingw.exe
now executes correctly.
This is 1.0.9 that we have built, and it had a bug for GTK2 builds which
I have fixed.
How should we proceed now? We have already uploaded the 1.0.8 tarball,
so we shouldn't change that. But we can put a 1.0.9 windows binary in
denemo.org/downloads and move on to releasing Denemo ver. 1.1 now.
The windows binary should be re-built (because of the GTK2 bug just
fixed), but apart from that we can move on to preparing a 1.1 release.

The main thing I think this needs is a sensible "General" palette, the
one currently appearing immediately above the music. This should have
all the buttons naive users expect. One thing that would be nice, but I
haven't looked into it, would be to have icons instead of text labels on
the buttons in the palettes.

Could people with experience of other score-writing programs suggest
buttons that are missing from the current "General" palette?

Oh, and a third thing that would be good would be buttons allow you to
switch to any movement in one click (and that would also let you see how
many movements you have easily).

Suggestions as to what else it would be desirable to add to ver 1.1 are
welcome ...

Richard

On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 09:10 -0500, Jeremiah Benham wrote:
> Ok. I have updated the binary.
>
> Jeremiah
>
> On Oct 4, 2013 3:12 AM, "Richard Shann" <address@hidden>
> wrote:
>         At last I have tracked down the bug causing the crash on
>         windows:
>
>         41ec393e949fe115d98d533b006d2a4f6d6405e6  utils functions
>         author Éloi
>         Rivard <address@hidden> Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:32:24 +0000
>         (14:32 +0200)
>
>         This commit was freeing the trailing arguments to
>         append_to_path(),
>         regardless of the caller's intentions. I think it is better
>         for callers
>         to keep responsibility for their own data and not to separate
>         allocation
>         from freeing if at all possible. In this case (initialization)
>         freeing
>         is not needed anyway.
>
>         Jeremiah - one final build please! Unless I have slipped in my
>         typing
>         the program should once again compile and work.
>
>         Richard
>
>