On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 4:13 PM, ORL <orl@ammd.net> wrote:

Le 04/05/2015 22:03, Paul Davis a écrit :

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons@linuxaudio.org> wrote:

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 06:02:37PM +0000, Ivan K wrote:

> Why might one prefer Ardour2 over Ardour3?

* When A3 emerged it offered little advantage if you
didn't need the new MIDI features.

A4 now has about 3000 bug fixes compared to A2. I suppose that if you know that A2 never has a problem with your workflow, good for you.

For everybody who doesn't know that, A2 is just a completely stupid choice.

;)
Always weighting the words, hey!
I don't think it's a "complete stupid choice", as well as A4 is not either. And if you don't need MIDI, I also think you might not want to change, as all the bug fixed weren't criticals,

many, many of the bugs were ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL. the fact that you may not run into them with the workflow you use doesn't change this.

But I've to say that I felt a bit "lost" when the switch has been done, telling my students that A3 arrived, A2 being unsupported,

we "supported" A2 by developing A3. we "supported" A3 by developing A4. the application development process is *never* going to stop. if you choose to stick with a specific version in order to open historical sessions, that is fine. But the result of us "supporting" A2 is ... Ardour 4.0. in the future it will be Ardour 5.0.

i repeat: using Ardour 2.x for new sessions is, in my opinion, completely indefensible.

and then finally telling them to wait a bit cause there were several severe bugs to be fixed - which is no problem to me, that's the way it has to be, and I suppose there was no way to allow A2 to open A3 sessions (to be able to get back).

what program has ever offered forward compatibility?